dating bootcamp

aidanki

hi all,

a friend emailed me this today......

SNIP

anyone ever done it & more importantly would u recommend it

Liam McPoyle

aidanki wrote: »

hi all,

a friend emailed me this today......

*SNIP*

anyone ever done it & more importantly would u recommend it

€1000, to become irresistible to women after one weekend.

I can only imagine the type of poor bollox that would fall for clap trap like this.

A fool and his money are soon parted indeed.

Wibbs

Sorry Aidanki as the charter says "Discussion of Pick-Up-Artists (PUA) methods and techniques are not allowed on this forum" and they most certainly qualify. so no way are they getting free advertising. I'll leave it open for the moment in case anyone has gone on such a "bootcamp", but let's have no discussion of the PUA stuff itself. Thanks

Wibbs

I can see the huge appeal of these seminars and the whole industry behind it. You see and hear of so many men of all ages and backgrounds who appear to be well on the back foot with interacting with women. The usual "just be yourself" advice if well meaning, is pretty empty. My problem is the BS behind much of their "training" and ethos and what isn't BS is as obvious as the nose on one's face.

I could see an opening for seminars that attempt to help men explore where they have social issues, but these wouldn't be it. IMH of course.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

I can see the huge appeal of these seminars and the whole industry behind it. You see and hear of so many men of all ages and backgrounds who appear to be well on the back foot with interacting with women. The usual "just be yourself" advice if well meaning, is pretty empty. My problem is the BS behind much of their "training" and ethos and what isn't BS is as obvious as the nose on one's face.

Once I was offered a free course in "daygaming" by a local PUA. I accepted but on the day made up a cock and bull story about being caught in traffic or something. I'm just not a fan of the PUA way of looking at things. I think I'd be perennially single than end up chatting to dozens of women just after that one thing.

Wibbs wrote: »

I could see an opening for seminars that attempt to help men explore where they have social issues, but these wouldn't be it. IMH of course.

I'd be very skeptical of something like this because of the aforementioned workshops. It'd be too easy to conflate it with a PUA seminar or something similar until you've actually sat through it. It's a shame because men with this problem are told to "man up" which is about as much help as being slapped in the face.

Jack Skellington

Didn't you say you were in a toastmasters group op? I'd say stick with genuine avenues for social improvement like that, and fair play to you for it. Don't part with your hard earned money here, my guess is you'll probably get a buzz out of the weekend,from all the promises and great anecdotes they'll make,and it won't be long before they try to convince you to attend their next seminar.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep A and if you are eager for the info it's all freely available online anyway. Why would any guy pay? Like I said it's very attractive to what appears to be a large cohort of men, particularly(but not exclusively) younger men who feel adrift. And the biz model relies on this deep need. It can in extremes be quite cultish too. Look how many obsessive rereg's Boards gets grinding this particular axe...

It might be freely online but the problem is the sheer amount of it. To the older and wiser it might be obvious which info is nonsense, helpful and which is, worse, BS at a price. The problem is that your average 21 year old chap might have a harder time discerning which is which.

Jack Skellington wrote: »

Didn't you say you were in a toastmasters group op? I'd say stick with genuine avenues for social improvement like that, and fair play to you for it. Don't part with your hard earned money here, my guess is you'll probably get a buzz out of the weekend,from all the promises and great anecdotes they'll make,and it won't be long before they try to convince you to attend their next seminar.

This is better advice IMO. I was canvassing for a certain political party myself but it didn't pan out. It's important to get out there talking to people (says the guy spending his Saturday night on an internet forum).

Mr E

All posts by rereg muppet (plus direct replies) have been deleted.

RedJoker

aidanki wrote: »

anyone ever done it & more importantly would u recommend it

I've done one and would recommend it.

Have reasonable expectations though, you're not going to turn into an irresistible ladies man over a weekend, it can certainly give you a good foundation and cut a lot of time off your development (compared to studying by yourself or good old fashioned trial and error).

You should be very careful about the company you choose though. I don't know which one was emailed to you so can't comment specifically.

ongarboy

I suppose in one way it's not too much different from someone going to a "how to succeed in an interview" or "how to successfully pitch and close a sale" type workshop/bootcamp. People who are not naturally confident, articulate, assertive etc would have to step outside their comfort zone in those settings too and possibly learn to be someone they naturally aren't to succeed in those challenges.

However, I can't help thinking that with the likes of dating and because the bootcamp is solely pitched on that, there is an emotional investment involved that gets exploited. A vulnerability that is being taken advantage of and that if you come out the other side the worse for wear (ie still have no dating success because underlying issues that this bootcamp cannot address), it makes you feel far worse than before you signed up for such dating/PUA bootcamps.

I think more general self improvement courses where you learn to feel, act and think positively about all aspects of your life are a far more successful route to, firstly being happy within yourself and secondly, the spin off benefits of that, other people are more drawn to you too, increasing the likelihood of making new friends, dating opportunites, reducing anxiety, increased satisfaction at work, improved self esteem etc.

Potatoeman

RedJoker wrote: »

I've done one and would recommend it.

Have reasonable expectations though, you're not going to turn into an irresistible ladies man over a weekend, it can certainly give you a good foundation and cut a lot of time off your development (compared to studying by yourself or good old fashioned trial and error).

You should be very careful about the company you choose though. I don't know which one was emailed to you so can't comment specifically.

How do you respond to the posts above that you are 'only after one thing' and 'taking advantage of people'?

RedJoker

Potatoeman wrote: »

How do you respond to the posts above that you are 'only after one thing' and 'taking advantage of people'?

I could reel off a bunch of the marketing nonsense but you could go to any of the websites and read that for yourself. I'm also aware that discussion on this topic is generally frowned upon here.

If you want my personal experience. I got out of a very long term relationship, was introverted, nerdy (almost all of my posts here are from the poker forum and I have a maths degree), had terrible body language (would look at the floor when walking) and overweight (although I'd already lost some of it). I had no idea what to say to women (which is funny looking back now and realizing how irrelevant the words are), had never done an "approach" and was severely uncomfortable with my sexual desires. As an example I felt wrong looking at women when walking down the street. I was happy with my life, had friends, hobbies, etc., etc. Just not particularly good with women or social in general. My ex once described me as a wallflower for example.

In the past year I've had up to 3 simultaneous multiple relationships (one of whom was a Brazilian catwalk model, one that's lasted over a year who I actually met during the day on the street), had threesomes, had one week where I slept with 4 new women. Have friends who've told me they have friends coming over to visit who would like to meet me while they're here. And a bunch of great memories and experiences. I'm still happy with my life, still have friends, hobbies, etc., etc. I just have a far more enviable sex life now and I doubt anybody would describe me as a wallflower, "bad boy" is more common despite helping my girlfriends with CVs, teaching them English, maths and accounting for various exams, writing a training program for one of them, even using a contact to get one a job. I'm clear from the start that I'm not interested in being exclusive and most women kinda just assume that about me now anyway.

That obviously didn't just come from doing a bootcamp though. It's taken 2 and a half years of work on myself, it was very hard but also interesting and a lot of fun. Like I mentioned, the bootcamp can give you a good foundation and cut time off your development. If it's just going to be the fun weekend where you practiced pickup then save your money.

Wibbs

Well fair play with making all those changes RJ. Can't have been easy if you were that "nerdy" and awkward beforehand. I personally can't see any issue with rolling relationships either, so long as the other person knows the score. Plus if you're upfront about that it will tend to winnow out those who are not comfortable with that(though the naive types may hang around convinced you'll change). The "bad boy" description is usually a crock IME. When used pejoratively it's either some other men driving the envy bus, or using it as an excuse for their own shortcomings as "nice" guys, or some women trying to shame the guy into what I'd call suburban thinking. If you're cool with your life and you're upfront about it and not screwing people over, game ball I say.



*Aside* For the record I'm talking entirely personally here, RE discussion on PUA stuff being frowned upon. I first came across it when I was a mod on the PI forum 7 years odd ago now. When relationship threads would come up we started to see PUA hawkers, devout followers and shills showing up. It started to get silly TBH. For me it was less about the advice being offered(though much of it was bro science daft), it was the near cultish attachment to it. Hell, just look how many PUA reregs sign up obsessively on Boards. There are three or four of the more obvious ones. Between deleted posts and user thanks there are three on this thread alone and two will be back as sure as night follows day. Then we had the obvious shills. I actually met a UK based PUA "guru" type while on the lash one night around that time and in the convo he mentioned a few of the marketing tricks within the biz and the level of forum shilling was high, either by the guys themselves or more usually their more wide eyed disciples(and the bootcamps were their big earners). Again personally speaking I'd have no great issue with discussion and debate around the subject, so long as the "game technique" stuff was kept to a minimum and shillers stayed the fcuk away. Problem is discussion tends to attract both of that stuff like flies to poo.

Pug160

RedJoker wrote: »

I could reel off a bunch of the marketing nonsense but you could go to any of the websites and read that for yourself. I'm also aware that discussion on this topic is generally frowned upon here.

If you want my personal experience. I got out of a very long term relationship, was introverted, nerdy (almost all of my posts here are from the poker forum and I have a maths degree), had terrible body language (would look at the floor when walking) and overweight (although I'd already lost some of it). I had no idea what to say to women (which is funny looking back now and realizing how irrelevant the words are), had never done an "approach" and was severely uncomfortable with my sexual desires. As an example I felt wrong looking at women when walking down the street. I was happy with my life, had friends, hobbies, etc., etc. Just not particularly good with women or social in general. My ex once described me as a wallflower for example.

In the past year I've had up to 3 simultaneous multiple relationships (one of whom was a Brazilian catwalk model, one that's lasted over a year who I actually met during the day on the street), had threesomes, had one week where I slept with 4 new women. Have friends who've told me they have friends coming over to visit who would like to meet me while they're here. And a bunch of great memories and experiences. I'm still happy with my life, still have friends, hobbies, etc., etc. I just have a far more enviable sex life now and I doubt anybody would describe me as a wallflower, "bad boy" is more common despite helping my girlfriends with CVs, teaching them English, maths and accounting for various exams, writing a training program for one of them, even using a contact to get one a job. I'm clear from the start that I'm not interested in being exclusive and most women kinda just assume that about me now anyway.

That obviously didn't just come from doing a bootcamp though. It's taken 2 and a half years of work on myself, it was very hard but also interesting and a lot of fun. Like I mentioned, the bootcamp can give you a good foundation and cut time off your development. If it's just going to be the fun weekend where you practiced pickup then save your money.

You may have just been one of those people who hide their light under a bushel, to use a rather comical phrase. Maybe you just needed to blow away a few cobwebs and become more assertive and sexually confident. I've known a few introverts who definitely weren't shy, so not all is what it seems sometimes. When you say it cut time off your development, what do you mean? I'd have thought most of the benefits of going to something like that, would just be the fact it's a kind of catalyst - it encourages you to make a change. But was there anything they said that was profound in any way? As you said, words can often be irrelevant, as can many other things some of those guys obsess over and analyse. Perhaps some of them dispense a few nuggets of wisdom here and there, but almost everything is so obvious it's staring us in the face most of the time.

I'm surprised you're referred to as a ''bad boy'' actually. As Wibbs said, it's often a label some people use out of envy or disapproval. But unless you're physically rugged looking and macho and ruthless etc, I'd have thought those type of comments would be aired in private, rather than to your face. A far more common, and applicable term I've heard being used is ''cheeky chappy'' or other similar types of descriptions.

RedJoker

Pug160 wrote: »

You may have just been one of those people who hide their light under a bushel, to use a rather comical phrase. Maybe you just needed to blow away a few cobwebs and become more assertive and sexually confident. I've known a few introverts who definitely weren't shy, so not all is what it seems sometimes. When you say it cut time off your development, what do you mean? I'd have thought most of the benefits of going to something like that, would just be the fact it's a kind of catalyst - it encourages you to make a change. But was there anything they said that was profound in any way? As you said, words can often be irrelevant, as can many other things some of those guys obsess over and analyse. Perhaps some of them dispense a few nuggets of wisdom here and there, but almost everything is so obvious it's staring us in the face most of the time.

I'm surprised you're referred to as a ''bad boy'' actually. As Wibbs said, it's often a label some people use out of envy or disapproval. But unless you're physically rugged looking and macho and ruthless etc, I'd have thought those type of comments would be aired in private, rather than to your face. A far more common, and applicable term I've heard being used is ''cheeky chappy'' or other similar types of descriptions.

I was in a relationship from 17 until 26 so it wasn't really a case of dusting off cobwebs, I didn't even have a frame of reference for adult seduction to begin with. I only had the adolescent skillset from when I was a teenager which hadn't been needed in almost a decade. Yes, being more assertive and sexually confident were things I worked on eventually.

Re. Cutting time off your development. It's mainly the personal feedback from the instructor. They'll watch you approaching and interacting with girls, sometimes join the conversation and can tell you pretty quickly what you're doing well and what you can improve. As well as being able to demonstrate in person. Some of the instructors have been teaching students for many years, they've seen almost everything. There's a huge amount of information available on this topic, it's very easy to waste time focusing on the wrong things. A big thing for many students is just getting over approach anxiety and a bootcamp is a very time efficient way to do that. There are other methods for that such as gradual desensitisation but they can take longer and may not suit everyone. Catalyst effect is also good as well, there's something very motivating being in a group of like minded individuals improving themselves.

With the company I used there's also a private forum you get access to after the bootcamp where the instructors reply to threads which is invaluable.

Non obvious nuggets of wisdom...I suppose it depends on your experience what will be obvious to you. I've certainly picked up a lot of stuff that wasn't obvious until it was explained to me. I can give some examples but they might all be obvious to you already.

What you say being far less important than the non verbal communication and the vibe you create isn't obvious to a lot of people.

That learning this stuff is closer to training for a sport. You can read as many books and as much theory as you want on how to play tennis but until you pick up a racket and start hitting balls you'll never improve. Same thing with getting better with women but lots of guys think they need to learn half a dozen systems first.

An example of something that now seems blindingly obvious would be that if you want to sleep with a girl then you should try to make her want to sleep with you.

Most guys and even puas will follow a process of getting to know the girl, maybe showing her how funny he is, making her feel comfortable, etc., etc. and then hopefully at the end of the night she'll feel like having sex. Most of it's at best unnecessary and at worst counterproductive. Seduction is an inherently uncomfortable process. You're building huge amounts of sexual tension and not letting it pop. Kissing a girl too much and definitely anything beyond that outside of a place where sex can happen is very often counterproductive. As nonintuitive as that seems, you're killing the sexual tension.

I think sexual tension would be a big thing a lot of guys aren't aware of and this is something I've only consciously added in myself over the last 6 months or so. The main ways to build this are
1. Eye contact - this is important but isn't enough on its own, you need to mix it with other things.
2. Proximity - this is contextual. You could be 2 feet away but if you're on the street in the day that might be well within comfortable personal space and creating tension. However, in a nightclub you might need to have your forehead practically touching hers and have your lips brushing her ear when you speak to her before you're really building tension.
3. Speaking slowly with pauses. You could be having the most mundane conversation with a girl, maybe you're sitting around a table with family members nearby, but if you maintain eye contact and gradually speak slower it builds a lot of tension. Many guys are worried about letting the conversation die which is a big reason they don't get anywhere. They're too nervous to shut up and build tension. This needs to be done with eye contact though.
4. Touch - less important than the first 3 and pretty well known. It needs to be calibrated and be aware that too much can kill the tension.
5. Verbal - pretty well known as well, less important, much more difficult and gets rejected a lot more. Sexual innuendo would be the exception but not something you could use in polite company.

I'm sure there's some other examples of non obvious things but they're the ones that come to mind right now.

Re. Being called a bad boy. This is something the girls have called me. I don't remember getting it from guys so it's not an envy thing. I don't think the girls are using it in a disapproving way, I think they like the idea of being with a bad boy. It generally happens after I've slept with them although sometimes before. (I'd highly recommend David Shade if you want to get better in bed, it's not PUA material, a lot of the content is actually directed at married men.) Usually one of the first things I'll do afterwards if I plan on seeing the girl again is to find out about her fantasies and then start doing them with her so that might be why they get that impression. For example, I started seeing a new girl a couple weeks ago and last night I took her somewhere public to have sex without warning her. "Cheeky chappy" wouldn't be a very good description of me, I tend to be more on the serious side but physically, yes, I would appear masculine.

Pug160

RedJoker wrote: »

I was in a relationship from 17 until 26 so it wasn't really a case of dusting off cobwebs, I didn't even have a frame of reference for adult seduction to begin with. I only had the adolescent skillset from when I was a teenager which hadn't been needed in almost a decade. Yes, being more assertive and sexually confident were things I worked on eventually.

Re. Cutting time off your development. It's mainly the personal feedback from the instructor. They'll watch you approaching and interacting with girls, sometimes join the conversation and can tell you pretty quickly what you're doing well and what you can improve. As well as being able to demonstrate in person. Some of the instructors have been teaching students for many years, they've seen almost everything. There's a huge amount of information available on this topic, it's very easy to waste time focusing on the wrong things. A big thing for many students is just getting over approach anxiety and a bootcamp is a very time efficient way to do that. There are other methods for that such as gradual desensitisation but they can take longer and may not suit everyone. Catalyst effect is also good as well, there's something very motivating being in a group of like minded individuals improving themselves.

With the company I used there's also a private forum you get access to after the bootcamp where the instructors reply to threads which is invaluable.

Non obvious nuggets of wisdom...I suppose it depends on your experience what will be obvious to you. I've certainly picked up a lot of stuff that wasn't obvious until it was explained to me. I can give some examples but they might all be obvious to you already.

What you say being far less important than the non verbal communication and the vibe you create isn't obvious to a lot of people.

That learning this stuff is closer to training for a sport. You can read as many books and as much theory as you want on how to play tennis but until you pick up a racket and start hitting balls you'll never improve. Same thing with getting better with women but lots of guys think they need to learn half a dozen systems first.

An example of something that now seems blindingly obvious would be that if you want to sleep with a girl then you should try to make her want to sleep with you.

Most guys and even puas will follow a process of getting to know the girl, maybe showing her how funny he is, making her feel comfortable, etc., etc. and then hopefully at the end of the night she'll feel like having sex. Most of it's at best unnecessary and at worst counterproductive. Seduction is an inherently uncomfortable process. You're building huge amounts of sexual tension and not letting it pop. Kissing a girl too much and definitely anything beyond that outside of a place where sex can happen is very often counterproductive. As nonintuitive as that seems, you're killing the sexual tension.

I think sexual tension would be a big thing a lot of guys aren't aware of and this is something I've only consciously added in myself over the last 6 months or so. The main ways to build this are
1. Eye contact - this is important but isn't enough on its own, you need to mix it with other things.
2. Proximity - this is contextual. You could be 2 feet away but if you're on the street in the day that might be well within comfortable personal space and creating tension. However, in a nightclub you might need to have your forehead practically touching hers and have your lips brushing her ear when you speak to her before you're really building tension.
3. Speaking slowly with pauses. You could be having the most mundane conversation with a girl, maybe you're sitting around a table with family members nearby, but if you maintain eye contact and gradually speak slower it builds a lot of tension. Many guys are worried about letting the conversation die which is a big reason they don't get anywhere. They're too nervous to shut up and build tension. This needs to be done with eye contact though.
4. Touch - less important than the first 3 and pretty well known. It needs to be calibrated and be aware that too much can kill the tension.
5. Verbal - pretty well known as well, less important, much more difficult and gets rejected a lot more. Sexual innuendo would be the exception but not something you could use in polite company.

I'm sure there's some other examples of non obvious things but they're the ones that come to mind right now.

Re. Being called a bad boy. This is something the girls have called me. I don't remember getting it from guys so it's not an envy thing. I don't think the girls are using it in a disapproving way, I think they like the idea of being with a bad boy. It generally happens after I've slept with them although sometimes before. (I'd highly recommend David Shade if you want to get better in bed, it's not PUA material, a lot of the content is actually directed at married men.) Usually one of the first things I'll do afterwards if I plan on seeing the girl again is to find out about her fantasies and then start doing them with her so that might be why they get that impression. For example, I started seeing a new girl a couple weeks ago and last night I took her somewhere public to have sex without warning her. "Cheeky chappy" wouldn't be a very good description of me, I tend to be more on the serious side but physically, yes, I would appear masculine.

The problem is, some guys are just far too analytical and they put too much emphasis on some of those tips you have mentioned. I think it's helpful to acknowledge them and perhaps put them into your subconscious, but if it's taken too far it can come across as artificial and forced. In my opinion, there is a snowball effect when you have a little bit of success: it gives you more confidence and more confidence makes you become more natural, so you'll automatically be more sociable, relaxed, funny and sexual etc. I think another part of the snowball effect is being sexually active: there are all sorts of benefits there, both physiological and psychological. As I've posted before, a big part of my own development was working in a job where I was forced to interact with others in a mixed sex environment. As I had never really been in a social circle with women in it, that kind of environment probably helped to humanise women to me. It probably makes me sound like a Neanderthal who was cut off from civilisation when I say that, but I reckon there's more men out there in a similar situation that some people might think.

I've noticed that some guys have other problems further down the line, like not being able to hold onto a woman they really like. But that's a 'good' problem to have, and more of a ''I'll cross that bridge when I come to it'' kind of thing - for me at least.

RedJoker

Pug160 wrote: »

The problem is, some guys are just far too analytical and they put too much emphasis on some of those tips you have mentioned. I think it's helpful to acknowledge them and perhaps put them into your subconscious, but if it's taken too far it can come across as artificial and forced. In my opinion, there is a snowball effect when you have a little bit of success: it gives you more confidence and more confidence makes you become more natural, so you'll automatically be more sociable, relaxed, funny and sexual etc. I think another part of the snowball effect is being sexually active: there are all sorts of benefits there, both physiological and psychological. As I've posted before, a big part of my own development was working in a job where I was forced to interact with others in a mixed sex environment. As I had never really been in a social circle with women in it, that kind of environment probably helped to humanise women to me. It probably makes me sound like a Neanderthal who was cut off from civilisation when I say that, but I reckon there's more men out there in a similar situation that some people might think.

I've noticed that some guys have other problems further down the line, like not being able to hold onto a woman they really like. But that's a 'good' problem to have, and more of a ''I'll cross that bridge when I come to it'' kind of thing - for me at least.

Yeah I agree with everything you said. A lot of guys are way too analytical (I'd include myself given my background) or think this is something that can be understood logically. It isn't, it's a physical and emotional process, not a logical one. I could type page after page explaining what sexual tension is; how to create it, what it feels like, describing the different reactions you get, etc., etc. Until you actually go out and practice, feel what it's like to lock eyes with a woman you're attracted to, feel the tension, feel the urge to break it, push through it repeatedly, learn to get comfortable with it and eventually learn to love that feeling and the bubble it creates you'll never actually understand what I'm talking about.

On the other side of that you have the guys who aren't analytical enough however and they're far worse. At least the guy sitting at home reading his 5th ebook is only wasting his own time and money, I've met guys who keep on doing the same thing over and over without making any attempts to change what they're doing or change themselves. They're wasting time and money but they're also pissing off a bunch of unsuspecting women. Also, while I'm on the point, if you've spent any amount of money on bootcamps or ebooks in hopes of improving your chances with women but you're not in the gym lifting weights at least 3 times a week, you're an idiot.

The snowball effect is called having abundance in game speak and yes, it's extremely important.

Getting better through your job or social circle works as well. The potential problem is that you then have a fear of making a mistake with a woman and losing your job or being alienated from your social circle. For a guy who might already be struggling with his own fears and insecurities it can make things needlessly harder. If you're socially calibrated enough for that not to be a real risk (or you just don't care) then it can be a great opportunity to improve.

Wibbs

RedJoker wrote: »

Also, while I'm on the point, if you've spent any amount of money on bootcamps or ebooks in hopes of improving your chances with women but you're not in the gym lifting weights at least 3 times a week, you're an idiot.

That's a very American based notion IMHO. The land that gave us "do you even lift brag?" Now of course being overweight or underweight for that matter(though less an issue) is not good for overall physical attractiveness and fitness is also important, but weight training, muscle building stuff is just one aspect. Like I say it's very prevalent in the US "game" circles. Getting bigger in the gym seems to be part and parcel of the whole thing and of US male culture in general. The bigger the better vibe. Maybe that's what works more on American women? The androgynous look doesn't seem to fly there, nearly as much as it would in say France. Still if a guy is staying fit and healthy otherwise him not lifting weights three times a week hardly makes him an "idiot", nor does it necessarily make him more or less attractive to women. Depends entirely on the audience.

ancapailldorcha

There are a lot of great reasons to lift weights but if lifting was some sort of pre-requisite to a romantic relationship then I'd happily remain single. I feel sorry for anyone who's been brainwashed into thinking that this is some sort of essential step to entering a relationship or attracting a lady's interest. Some women like muscular men but most of the chaps I know who are in relationships do little exercise aside from running. As I said, there are a lot of great reasons to lift but if you're doing it for the sole reason that you think it'll help you get a girlfriend then you need to look at your priorities IMO.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/shy-how-to-attract-women/

RedJoker

Wibbs wrote: »

That's a very American based notion IMHO. The land that gave us "do you even lift brag?" Now of course being overweight or underweight for that matter(though less an issue) is not good for overall physical attractiveness and fitness is also important, but weight training, muscle building stuff is just one aspect. Like I say it's very prevalent in the US "game" circles. Getting bigger in the gym seems to be part and parcel of the whole thing and of US male culture in general. The bigger the better vibe. Maybe that's what works more on American women? The androgynous look doesn't seem to fly there, nearly as much as it would in say France. Still if a guy is staying fit and healthy otherwise him not lifting weights three times a week hardly makes him an "idiot", nor does it necessarily make him more or less attractive to women. Depends entirely on the audience.

I don't think it's purely an American thing, although it might be more prevalent there. As far as I know there are African countries where being overweight is (or at least was) a sign of status and affluence for a man but in developed countries it seems muscularity is more universally attractive.

As purely anecdotal evidence, having been with women while at different weights and body fat percentages I'll say that there are definitely large differences in response. Girls now run their hands all over my body during, after and sometimes even before sex. That wasn't happening over a year ago when I would have been (and was quite a few times by girls) described as "athletic". They considered my body a positive but it certainly wasn't getting the same raw, physical reaction it does now. For slightly less anecdotal evidence, the guys on the front of romance novels tend to fit a fairly narrow range of body types. For even less anecdotal evidence I could pull up studies and articles on this if you'd like, although it's probably the case that a lot of the literature would have an American bias.

I'm not suggesting you need to turn into a steroid abusing bodybuilder here, that would be counter productive. Getting down to 10% body fat and adding 20 pounds of muscle will make a huge difference and for most guys that'll be achievable within a year or so on a proper routine and diet.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are a lot of great reasons to lift weights but if lifting was some sort of pre-requisite to a romantic relationship then I'd happily remain single. I feel sorry for anyone who's been brainwashed into thinking that this is some sort of essential step to entering a relationship or attracting a lady's interest. Some women like muscular men but most of the chaps I know who are in relationships do little exercise aside from running. As I said, there are a lot of great reasons to lift but if you're doing it for the sole reason that you think it'll help you get a girlfriend then you need to look at your priorities IMO.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/shy-how-to-attract-women/

I didn't say it's a prerequisite to having a romantic relationship. I'm saying that, if this is important enough to you that you would invest significant amounts of time and money into learning it (it might not be, people have different priorities and goals in life), and you're not doing what is the simplest and most direct (although not necessarily easy) way to make women sexually interested in you, you're crazy. It's not enough on it's own (as the author of the article you linked discovered); talking to women in the first place is far more important, sexual interest is worthless unless you're capitalising on it (although I guess it can feel validating). However, your progress will be significantly easier and you'll hit the snowball effect much, much sooner if you're in shape.

Also there's a large difference between what girls look for in a relationship or provider and what they'll look for in short term or casual sexual encounters. As Pug eluded to, keeping girls around afterwards can sometimes take additional work on other areas of your life. I would speculate that it's more a case of the girl compromising on some of the arousing qualities in the relationship or provider guy rather than it being a preference. This might be a case of not being able to get the arousing guy to commit or the arousing guy not possessing suitable relationship qualities.

The difference between attraction and arousal is pretty important. The article you linked to seems to miss this distinction or is just interested in attraction. He mentions self reported studies (which are notoriously inaccurate, especially with women, see here for why) but it discusses qualities that women find attractive in men; sense of humour, professional passion, kindness, active listener, etc. Women aren't queuing up to sleep with the really nice, hard working comedian though. They're telling him he's such a great guy and he's going to make some lucky women really, really happy one day...just not her. I've been that guy before, had all those qualities and had girls tell me those exact things. Feel free to work on developing the 9 qualities he listed but it won't improve your sex life. It's interesting that he uses the word date as well. Yes, women will date you, however they'll probably go on 5 or 6 dates with you before (if) they sleep with you. Some might even require you to commit beforehand.

Are the qualities he mentions important to keep women in your life? Absolutely and some are important for just being a decent person in general. However, I will say that it's significantly easier to get a relationship, if that's what you're interested in, if you're already sleeping with the girl. Often it takes significant effort to avoid having the girl trying to get you into a relationship.


If you're running you're going to end up with a runners body (large muscular legs, relatively small chest). It's better than being over or under weight certainly but not as good as having a muscular upper body as well.

Re. Preferring to remain single if weight lifting was a prerequisite. There's not much difference between this attitude and the guy who says I don't want to change or learn game, I want a girl who likes me for who I am. If you're not getting the girls you want with who you are now then either lower your standards, remain single or become the guy they do want. If you are getting them then you probably wouldn't be considering a bootcamp in the first place and my recommendation to lift weights wouldn't apply to you (although I'd still recommend it).

Re. Doing it for the sole reason to get a girlfriend. You're right, there are loads of good reasons, besides getting women, to lift weights. Improved mood, more energy, more testosterone, more strength, better health, mobility and lifestyle in old age, etc., etc. However, it's a very nice ideal to be doing something purely for yourself and perhaps there are some Buddhist monks who've achieved enlightenment and are completely detached from external motivation. For most people that's not really realistic though and the opinion of the opposite sex and other people in general matters. If it's the only thing that matters then I agree it's not healthy but you're creating a false dichotomy here, it's possible and much more common for the motivation to be a combination of both. Sure, aim to make it more about yourself but there's no shame in admitting that part of your motivation for improving yourself is for other people's reactions. It's like the girl who says she "gets dressed up and puts on make-up when she goes out for herself, not to attract guys". However, they don't sit around at home in high heels and make-up. Sweat pants and their hair tied up would be much more common. Is she doing it purely to get attention? Maybe some are but, again, it's a false dichotomy. There's nothing wrong with a woman dressing up to feel sexy in herself while also hoping to attract the attention of men.


I would be very, very wary of mainstream dating advice such as the article you linked. It's not that it's absolutely "wrong", it's just a little misleading. Some of the PUA stuff is pretty bad as well of course, especially the old stuff. There's a lot of talk in game of not getting put in the "friendzone", etc. The truth is that using the approach of being her friend, getting to know her, being nice, sweet, a good listener, having all those qualities, etc., etc. does sometimes work. It's not terribly efficient but girls can be convinced over time to give them a chance. Would I recommend spending 6+ months trying to convince one girl you're infatuated by to give you a chance? No, I'd tell you to have a little self respect and find a girl who's interested in you as well but I'd be lying if I said it would never work. Most guys aren't at this extreme of course but they're still doing stuff that is counterproductive or inefficient if they want sexual relationships (of any type) with girls.

Mike747

Mainstream dating advice is usually terrible. Some of the pua guys may be scammers or weirdos but quite a lot of them have cracked it.

ancapailldorcha

RedJoker wrote: »

I didn't say it's a prerequisite to having a romantic relationship. I'm saying that, if this is important enough to you that you would invest significant amounts of time and money into learning it (it might not be, people have different priorities and goals in life), and you're not doing what is the simplest and most direct (although not necessarily easy) way to make women sexually interested in you, you're crazy. It's not enough on it's own (as the author of the article you linked discovered); talking to women in the first place is far more important, sexual interest is worthless unless you're capitalising on it (although I guess it can feel validating). However, your progress will be significantly easier and you'll hit the snowball effect much, much sooner if you're in shape.....

Re. Preferring to remain single if weight lifting was a prerequisite. There's not much difference between this attitude and the guy who says I don't want to change or learn game, I want a girl who likes me for who I am. If you're not getting the girls you want with who you are now then either lower your standards, remain single or become the guy they do want. If you are getting them then you probably wouldn't be considering a bootcamp in the first place and my recommendation to lift weights wouldn't apply to you (although I'd still recommend it).

I was referring to guys who seem to think that it's a pre-requisite, not yourself as you didn't say that. One of the guys I know who've had plenty of one-night stands lifts. The rest do a small amount of running here and there. I don't think that running alone is a great way to get fit but that's another thread. The thing these guys have in common is their intelligence, charisma and sense of humor. One is a Geochemist who just spent a summer in Liberia mining for gold, the weightlifter is a newsreader and another works in a hospital laboratory. They all have passions and this is what makes them interesting.

To be fair, if you've a silly amount of disposable income and a problem with being single then a gym membership is likely a better use of your time and cash than a PUA bootcamp. You've said this yourself so I don't think we need to focus on that. The issue I have with them is that you're not getting much more for your money than advice good mates, especially women can give for free.

Mike747

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was referring to guys who seem to think that it's a pre-requisite, not yourself as you didn't say that. One of the guys I know who've had plenty of one-night stands lifts. The rest do a small amount of running here and there. I don't think that running alone is a great way to get fit but that's another thread. The thing these guys have in common is their intelligence, charisma and sense of humor. One is a Geochemist who just spent a summer in Liberia mining for gold, the weightlifter is a newsreader and another works in a hospital laboratory. They all have passions and this is what makes them interesting.

To be fair, if you've a silly amount of disposable income and a problem with being single then a gym membership is likely a better use of your time and cash than a PUA bootcamp. You've said this yourself so I don't think we need to focus on that. The issue I have with them is that you're not getting much more for your money than advice good mates, especially women can give for free.

But what advice can women give? I mean they might say 'I love guys who can make me laugh' but being funny isn't enough. In fairness you could ask a male who's very good with women for advice and he might say 'just be yourself and go talk to some girls'. It's useless advice but it's all he can do since he's naturally good with women and can't really explain why.

PUA can actually teach you some great stuff. The problem of course is trying to figure which guys are legit and which are useless.

ancapailldorcha

Mike747 wrote: »

But what advice can women give? I mean they might say 'I love guys who can make me laugh' but being funny isn't enough. In fairness you could ask a male who's very good with women for advice and he might say 'just be yourself and go talk to some girls'. It's useless advice but it's all he can do since he's naturally good with women and can't really explain why.

PUA can actually teach you some great stuff. The problem of course is trying to figure which guys are legit and which are useless.

Tips on how to present yourself, good conversation openers, general encouragement, etc...

The "why" is fairly straightforward. These chaps are fairly good looking, in reasonable shape, have very good careers and are very interesting people. I don't see the point in spending time with someone if you don't enjoy conversing with them.

I'm not dismissing the entire litany of PUA teachings. The problems are that some of them as you've stated are useless and the rest charge an absolute bomb just for pushing you into interacting with women and some basic advice you can get with Google.

RedJoker

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was referring to guys who seem to think that it's a pre-requisite, not yourself as you didn't say that. One of the guys I know who've had plenty of one-night stands lifts. The rest do a small amount of running here and there. I don't think that running alone is a great way to get fit but that's another thread. The thing these guys have in common is their intelligence, charisma and sense of humor. One is a Geochemist who just spent a summer in Liberia mining for gold, the weightlifter is a newsreader and another works in a hospital laboratory. They all have passions and this is what makes them interesting.

To be fair, if you've a silly amount of disposable income and a problem with being single then a gym membership is likely a better use of your time and cash than a PUA bootcamp. You've said this yourself so I don't think we need to focus on that. The issue I have with them is that you're not getting much more for your money than advice good mates, especially women can give for free.

They sound like awesome guys, it's not surprising women like them. However, there are equally awesome guys who also lead very interesting lives but don't get anywhere with women. Getting with women is a very simple process, there's really not a lot to it and I completely understand the point of view of guys like Wibbs and Pug who think game and PUA is all a bit too analytical and unnecessary. They managed to get good with women by themselves over time and maybe can't fully relate. I can't even relate to the person I was 2 or 3 years ago, it feels like a different person at this stage. The reason this stuff is so analytical is that there are guys who get stuck at various stages and need training wheels and repeated exposure to get through their sticking point.

An example would be routines. Completely unnecessary, right? For a lot of people I'd agree with you. The thing is, for the guy who has absolutely no idea what to say to women and is terrified of approaching, he needs those training wheels to get anywhere. Send him in all nervous and get him to improvise on the spot and he'll crash and burn repeatedly, get dejected, lose motivation and quit. Give him a few lines to say and he can get into conversation, see that starting conversations with beautiful women isn't so scary and that the vast majority are really nice people. With repeated exposure he'll calm down and won't need those routines anymore. At this point he should drop them but it's maybe not always made clear to students that they should be dropped. It's not just line by line routines that need to be dropped. I overheard an instructor tell a student a few simple questions to use when doing daygame. Very basic stuff. Approach, explain why you came to talk to her, introduce yourself, ask her what she's up to today, what she does for work and what she does for fun. Answer the questions yourself and relate to what she's saying.

I used that for a long time before I posted a question on the lounge and the instructor told me to drop it. I hadn't realised that it was just training wheels to get the student opening and interacting. Same thing applies to kiss close routines, lines to say when bringing a girl home, etc. They're not these magical incantations that manipulate girls into doing things they don't want to. They're training wheels to help a student get over his own nervousness until he no longer needs them.

The natural who says just be confident isn't lying, he's absolutely correct but it's not really useful advice.


Listening to women for advice on meeting women seems logical but it's truly appalling. Never, ever ask a woman for advice on this subject. If I can convince you of nothing else, please believe me on this one. A lot of the mainstream dating advice for men actually comes from women and it's awful stuff. You're asking somebody who has never seduced a woman how to do it. It's like asking a food critic how to cook a gourmet meal. They might be able to list the ingredients and describe what it should taste like but they wouldn't be able to make it themselves and certainly wouldn't be able to teach you how to cook it. I don't know if you read the article I linked but it's extremely fascinating. Women will lie about this stuff for a variety of reasons. Their answer to your questions might change depending on who asked the question, who's listening, who those people might tell, what time of the month it is, etc., etc. Most of the time they're just regurgitating nonsense they read in mainstream articles anyway. What the article I linked showed was that women sometimes aren't even consciously aware of what turns them on. They detected that the women were aroused but they responded that they weren't. Their own bodies are misleading them.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Tips on how to present yourself, good conversation openers, general encouragement, etc...

The "why" is fairly straightforward. These chaps are fairly good looking, in reasonable shape, have very good careers and are very interesting people. I don't see the point in spending time with someone if you don't enjoy conversing with them.

I'm not dismissing the entire litany of PUA teachings. The problems are that some of them as you've stated are useless and the rest charge an absolute bomb just for pushing you into interacting with women and some basic advice you can get with Google.

The industry itself attracts a lot of scammers (female instructors are by far the worst btw) and you need to be really, really careful who you listen to but there are also instructors and companies with a genuine passion for helping guys improve. I can only imagine how rewarding it must feel to watch a student completely change his life.

Yes, all the information you could ever need is available on google, there's more content then you could possibly hope to read. In fact, you don't even need that, you could go out and interact with women and eventually figure all of this out for yourself.

What you're getting for your money are experts who've not only seduced sometimes hundreds of women themselves but have also discussed and tested ideas with loads of other experts and refined their methods over time. Not only that but they've worked out methods of teaching and training students from a variety of backgrounds and experience levels to do the same. Game, and the teaching methods, have evolved substantially from 15 years ago. It's not really surprising, take a group of intelligent guys, give them a fun, complex problem with a pay off of sleeping with beautiful women and see how motivated they are to solve it. Most of the stuff Mystery and Style taught had to be unlearned but it was the beginning and popularised the idea that getting better with women could be learnt and taught to others.

I was in Rio for 2 days back in September and wanted to see the attractions. I hired a personal tour guide to take me around for 10 hours and show me everything including some off the beaten path type things. It was expensive. I could have gone online, looked up all the locations, figured out how to get everywhere, hired a bunch of separate tours, etc. but I never would have got everything done in 2 days and there were places I went which don't have tours. I could equally have wandered around Rio randomly until I found everything but that would have taken months or years and I may never have found everything. Yes, there's no secret information on these bootcamps, you're paying for an expert to cut time off your learning curve. If your sticking point is needing to be pushed into conversation then it can be worth the money to have somebody do that. If you're more advanced and don't even know what your sticking point is it can be invaluable to have an instructor look at your game and tell you what you need to work on.

Pug160

Developing a decent physique or simply working out enough in order to look robust or sturdy is a good thing, generally speaking. I've decided to limit my alcohol intake to once a fortnight at the most, which is why I'm not going out tonight, so I'm taking that side of things seriously (alcohol really messes with any sort of physical training). That being said, certain types of men either suit being lean/skinny/average Joes or get away with it because they have decent looking faces and plenty of confidence. Other men look ill if they're not at a certain weight. Hormonal women tend to be more attracted to robust looking guys. I've been both skinny and relatively well built, and there is a difference. A lot of the attention is from women you're not really that keen on, or other men who kind of admire you, though. But everything else being equal, men with a bit of muscle will catch the eye of more women. Black men, who are arguably the most objectified of all men, quite often have muscular bodies, especially the ones from the Caribbean. That's certainly not the only reason they're objectified of course, but it's one of the major ones.

I think working out religiously in order to attract women would be foolish and a great waste of one's time. But moderate exercise which includes resistance training has lots of benefits, and if it's enjoyable then all the better. One you feel comfortable in your own body, and think you've nailed the physical side of things, it's all about personal development and creating a good vibe and first impression. Look at someone like Russell Brand, he's not what I'd call masculine in the slightest, but he doesn't have to be as it suits him. Very few will have his wit or charm mind you - he's clearly a natural. But there are many men who don't need to be well built. It definitely doesn't hurt anyone's chances to work out a bit, though.

Wibbs

RedJoker wrote:

Listening to women for advice on meeting women seems logical but it's truly appalling. Never, ever ask a woman for advice on this subject.

Actually - and of course as a general rule - but I'd have to say I'd be in agreement with you on this. 1) All too often what women(tm) will say they go for is at complete odds with what they actually go for 2) definitions can be problematic gender wise. IE what a woman means as a "nice guy" is often a world away from what a man means, especially what self described nice guys mean(who are often anything but). 3) the natural tendency to not want to cause offence is usually more present in women, they're generally less socially confrontational so are more likely to tell a male friend what they think they'd like to hear. 4) a fair minority of women don't actually know what they find attractive or how a guy should approach, because they fall back on more "gut" "magical thinking" less reductive personal experience on previous guys that have won their hearts(or other parts). This pretty large minority want the encounters to be "magical", It just happened/love eat first sight/it was fate/swept off my feet etc. Even if personally true, it's of zero help for a guy to work out the reasons why their knees went wobbly.

The natural who says just be confident isn't lying,

I'd agree with this too. "be confident" is up there with "just be yourself" as advice as much use as teats on a bull. Well meaning, but of little practical use for a man with no confidence and being himself but nothing is happening for him. I'd say the same of women who are given the same advice. Pleasant to hear but practically pretty useless.

ancapailldorcha

Pug160 wrote: »

Developing a decent physique or simply working out enough in order to look robust or sturdy is a good thing, generally speaking. I've decided to limit my alcohol intake to once a fortnight at the most, which is why I'm not going out tonight, so I'm taking that side of things seriously (alcohol really messes with any sort of physical training). That being said, certain types of men either suit being lean/skinny/average Joes or get away with it because they have decent looking faces and plenty of confidence. Other men look ill if they're not at a certain weight. Hormonal women tend to be more attracted to robust looking guys. I've been both skinny and relatively well built, and there is a difference. A lot of the attention is from women you're not really that keen on, or other men who kind of admire you, though. But everything else being equal, men with a bit of muscle will catch the eye of more women. Black men, who are arguably the most objectified of all men, quite often have muscular bodies, especially the ones from the Caribbean. That's certainly not the only reason they're objectified of course, but it's one of the major ones.

I think working out religiously in order to attract women would be foolish and a great waste of one's time. But moderate exercise which includes resistance training has lots of benefits, and if it's enjoyable then all the better. One you feel comfortable in your own body, and think you've nailed the physical side of things, it's all about personal development and creating a good vibe and first impression. Look at someone like Russell Brand, he's not what I'd call masculine in the slightest, but he doesn't have to be as it suits him. Very few will have his wit or charm mind you - he's clearly a natural. But there are many men who don't need to be well built. It definitely doesn't hurt anyone's chances to work out a bit, though.

Good post.

I was doing some resistance training but I gave it up when I moved across the country (again). I'd only really just started and I definitely noticed an improvement in both my energy and confidence. I never made any serious traction due to the move but have been toying with the notion of giving it another chance. I'm sure it definitely wouldn't hurt in terms of looks as well.

RedJoker

Wibbs wrote: »

especially what self described nice guys mean(who are often anything but).

Good points but I just want to address this. It's become pretty popular to bash "nice guys". Having been one myself I was guilty of this for a while, some long rants. I think I read that there's a psychological tendency to hate the negative traits we see in others that we're scared we have ourselves. Some type of defence mechanism to distance ourselves.

The vast majority of "nice guys" are genuinely nice people. It's a false dichotomy to say that they're only doing nice things in hopes of sleeping with the girl. Maybe some percentage of the motivation is about that but a lot more is about just being a kind, helpful person.

I feel sympathy for them now, they've been told that women don't like assholes and want to be with nice, kind men (the article ACD linked being an example), now they're being told that they're actually worse than the assholes because they just want the same thing but they're being deceitful about it.

A lot of these guys are so sexually repressed and uncomfortable with their own desires that they would be appalled by the suggestion. A lot of the people dismissing game fall into this category as well. There are the naturals who think it's unnecessary or too analytical. But there are also the guys who think learning how to be better with women is wrong on some level because they're been conditioned to believe that their natural desires are somehow bad.

Mokuba

Nice to see an open, rational discussion on an often ridiculed/stigmatised topic from different viewpoints.

Joker do you talk about it with anybody? Do friends know?

And do you have any aspirations toward marriage, even at some point down the line, or would that not interest you?

Wibbs

Mokuba wrote: »

Nice to see an open, rational discussion on an often ridiculed/stigmatised topic from different viewpoints.

Ditto TBH. Given its clear popularity among many men, if even from a curiosity standpoint it does deserve analysis and debate IMHO.

I find it interesting how it evolved too. There's a large chasm between Strauss' The Game and say The Return of Kings/Roosh type "PUA"* Take the do you even lift Brah angle. Pretty much absent from the early guys, now as RJ reckons it's a near given. Interestingly RJ with this; "adding 20 pounds of muscle" shows the American influence. On this side of the pond we'd either use kilos or stones. When I hear weight expressed in pounds I hear it in an American twang so the influence is there.

The other thing that changed was the whole "peacocking" vibe. Back in the day it was "let's look like a bunch of fcukwits who emptied the fancy dress shop", now it's "blazers and pocket squares". I'm not quite sure which is more the blind following, though the latter is less daft to be fair, though again an American take on what Italian men are born to. Other ideas have evolved too. Negs and all that stuff is largely gone, or less hamfisted than before. Routines like silly magic tricks(Mystery's influence, being a low end magician) and cold reading and all that are largely gone too. Another change again from The US is the idea of getting away from the American Dream(tm) and especially the American Woman(tm) that has been apparently poisoned by marxist feminism and such(Hearteist(sp) runs with this in a big way). The vibe now is to leave the US(and UK/Ireland/Australia basically the English speaking world) which is contaminated by obesity, narcissism and entitlement, to seek places on east(actual spell check typo, I typed elsewhere . I"m switching that shít off) where Old Fashioned Women(tm) are to be found and gamed.

As ye can see, I have kept somewhat up to speed with the changes within the whole broad PUA landscape. I first had a look because of all things being a mod in PI who wanted to figure out where these guys were coming from(and specifically the obsessive sad sack reregs and how to spot them). Plus I am interested in social dynamics and what is going on under the surface, under the mask of language and culture. PUA was and is for me a large scale social experiment on some aspects of gender interaction. I say some, because it can be highly selective and too much of it is self reporting, which is pretty useless as a yardstick. If self reporting online was a goer we;d all have yardsticks for mickeys. .

Of the current crop I've had a look at an English guy called Krauser has some interesting angles and takes on the subject. He comes across as honest too and calls out other so called gurus as chancers when he spots the BS. He's also honest about his failures and results and the percentages of encounters that actually translate into something more. He's taking a non American angle on the whole thing and applying a less gung ho approach. He's also intelligent and obsessive, a good mix if you want to glean anything useful from on the ground research and results. Even more, he's late 30's IIRC, not exactly the best looking dude in the world(No Homo(tm) for our US based readers, lest you get frightened about catching the "gay" :pac:), so any results he gets are not based on how he looks, unlike so many of the other "gurus" who are notably better looking than the guys they're shilling for cash.

Actually the No Homo meme says a helluva lot about the US mentality around masculinity(a mentality that is spreading through the interwebs). I'd argue so does the "do you even lift brah" stuff and all that "Alpha" shíte. It's an incredibly narrow definition of male fostered by a culture that is a confusing culture of opposites. More, it's also a narrow definition of male attractiveness to women. Sure it will fly for a percentage of women, but it is incredibly selective by its very nature. Maybe it works for American women, particularly the millennial types(which TBH wouldn't altogether surprise me), but I'd personally find it too restrictive.

And that's running on some level of personal experience too. Being an oul fart, I've been around the block a fair bit and have seen a fair amount of man/woman interactions and not just my own and not just in Ireland. Now I am most certainly not pulling the "I'm older so I knows better, kids" ballsology here. That's a crock IME. Age doesn't bring wisdom in the majority, it just makes them better at papering up the cracks enough so they can settle into a comfortable rut(goes triple for older men. Older women are usually more open IME).

Anyway, the most successful with women guy I ever met? Short, pudgy with an unattractive mein(No Homo(tm). That lad pushed the biological limits of how penile skin cells could recover from excessive friction and his partners in friction ranged from "jaysus not with yours" to "so how are you getting her to the Ms World and Nobel ceremony afterward". If one was to ask him did he even lift? His answer would have been "yea pints" and he did this on three continents. His secret? He did not give a fcuk. Not a fcuk was ever given by him. He was very nice about it. He never got bitchy or any of that energy wasting guff He didn't see himself as the prize or any of that, mostly he saw the numbers. As I've oft said before, 50% of the folks out there are women. Them's good odds, so why settle for anything less than what you want? There are enough women out there, numbered in the millions, or thousands more locally that you will gel with and they with you. Oh and that stat goes for the ladies too.

And do you have any aspirations toward marriage, even at some point down the line, or would that not interest you?

I've rambled enough(big fcuking shock), though I would say, at least in my personal experience that the more "action" you get, the less marriage, love and all that appeals. Many years back I had gone through a bad breakup and after all the feelz, I went mad for the hunt. Really slapper time. And the more I got into that ONS/mini flings/etc, the more the idea of permanence retreated. I saw too much, I saw behind the curtain and the script and got way too reductive about the whole thing. Just my humble, but I'd much rather to be back pre those days and be a little more open, even naive. I really would.



Christ I do go on. Paid by the word I am. No really, Daft.ie fire a cent for every word I type and the Chinese folks in Apple's keyboard dept have a whip around for me every month. It's a living...






*autocorrect swap PUA our for "pus" I dunno how to take that. SJW spellchecker?

RedJoker

Mokuba wrote: »

Nice to see an open, rational discussion on an often ridiculed/stigmatised topic from different viewpoints.

Joker do you talk about it with anybody? Do friends know?

And do you have any aspirations toward marriage, even at some point down the line, or would that not interest you?

I'm very open about it but I'm pretty open about everything anyway. Friends know, family knows. I was just having a discussion about a guy on the lounge with my sister. He has serious issues with this and has picked up some horrendous mindsets from lair guys and some of the weirder PUA gurus as well as just misunderstanding advice. Best guess is he has some mild form of autism and really shouldn't be trying this until he has basic social skills. My sister works with special needs kids and would have experience with autism and personality disorders so I was asking her opinion. We've advised him repeatedly to get professional help, stop approaching and just do normal things, make normal friends until he has basic social intuition. It's very hard to get through to him though and none of us really have the professional knowledge to help him.

I have a daughter so don't feel any pressure to get married and have more kids. Family courts are heavily biased against men of course so there's huge, huge risk from the man's side with not a lot of upside, I'd basically consider it a sacrifice. Even knowing that, I'm not completely opposed to the idea but I have enough experience now (hopefully) to select wisely and understand women enough to avoid and deal with any issues so the risks should be much lower compared to the average guy. I'm 28 so my options are only going to be increasing over the next 5 to 10 years (bar some accident) anyway.

For the guy who's only been with a couple of girls in his life and is under at least 30 I'd strongly recommend avoiding marriage. There are of course plenty of great potential wives out there and no reason why you can't have a wonderful life together but you're playing Russian roulette. I realise that most of the time that's going to fall on deaf ears though, for the guy who's been involuntarily single for most of his life it's a difficult proposition to pass up. For those that are already married I'd highly recommend marriage game, look up Athol Kay. He has a blog and a book called married man sex life, which I bought but haven't got around to reading yet.

RedJoker

Wibbs wrote: »

I find it interesting how it evolved too. There's a large chasm between Strauss' The Game and say The Return of Kings/Roosh type "PUA"* Take the do you even lift Brah angle. Pretty much absent from the early guys, now as RJ reckons it's a near given. Interestingly RJ with this; "adding 20 pounds of muscle" shows the American influence. On this side of the pond we'd either use kilos or stones. When I hear weight expressed in pounds I hear it in an American twang so the influence is there.

I might have picked that up from American weight training sites although maybe it was from game as well. If anybody is interested in improving their body I'd recommend reading rippedbody.jp and leangains.com, there are other great sites as well but you'll discover most of them if you browse around long enough. For any women reading this I'd look up Leigh Peele and Bret Contreras as well.

Style mentions building muscle in his book. I didn't really notice it at the time because so much of the focus was on the routines though.

Wibbs wrote: »

The other thing that changed was the whole "peacocking" vibe. Back in the day it was "let's look like a bunch of fcukwits who emptied the fancy dress shop", now it's "blazers and pocket squares". I'm not quite sure which is more the blind following, though the latter is less daft to be fair, though again an American take on what Italian men are born to. Other ideas have evolved too. Negs and all that stuff is largely gone, or less hamfisted than before. Routines like silly magic tricks(Mystery's influence, being a low end magician) and cold reading and all that are largely gone too. Another change again from The US is the idea of getting away from the American Dream(tm) and especially the American Woman(tm) that has been apparently poisoned by marxist feminism and such(Hearteist(sp) runs with this in a big way). The vibe now is to leave the US(and UK/Ireland/Australia basically the English speaking world) which is contaminated by obesity, narcissism and entitlement, to seek places on east(actual spell check typo, I typed elsewhere . I"m switching that shít off) where Old Fashioned Women(tm) are to be found and gamed.

As ye can see, I have kept somewhat up to speed with the changes within the whole broad PUA landscape. I first had a look because of all things being a mod in PI who wanted to figure out where these guys were coming from(and specifically the obsessive sad sack reregs and how to spot them). Plus I am interested in social dynamics and what is going on under the surface, under the mask of language and culture. PUA was and is for me a large scale social experiment on some aspects of gender interaction. I say some, because it can be highly selective and too much of it is self reporting, which is pretty useless as a yardstick. If self reporting online was a goer we;d all have yardsticks for mickeys. .

Of the current crop I've had a look at an English guy called Krauser has some interesting angles and takes on the subject. He comes across as honest too and calls out other so called gurus as chancers when he spots the BS. He's also honest about his failures and results and the percentages of encounters that actually translate into something more. He's taking a non American angle on the whole thing and applying a less gung ho approach. He's also intelligent and obsessive, a good mix if you want to glean anything useful from on the ground research and results. Even more, he's late 30's IIRC, not exactly the best looking dude in the world(No Homo(tm) for our US based readers, lest you get frightened about catching the "gay" :pac:), so any results he gets are not based on how he looks, unlike so many of the other "gurus" who are notably better looking than the guys they're shilling for cash.

Cold reading is still taught. If I was doing a direct approach then I'd usually transition with a cold read about where shes from or what she does. That's mostly to avoid starting the conversation with a bunch of questions and getting into an interview vibe. Although maybe you're referring to the "I get the feeling you're the type of person who likes to have lots of friends and be social but sometimes you prefer to be by yourself" type stuff, that's pretty much gone.

I only started reading the manosphere a few months ago. There is some really, really toxic stuff on there. Most of the return of kings content is just click bait and purposely antagonistic to get shares and cause controversy. Heartiste is at least amusing but it's important to understand that being 100% "alpha" all the time is not the best way to attract women. He doesn't say it is but it's easy to miss the distinction between describing "alpha" traits and recommending it as a strategy. Roosh has some really negative views of countries he can't get laid in. Their comments on feminism and male shaming aren't far off the mark though.

The only I site would feel comfortable recommending from the manosphere is therationalmale.com. Krauser is ok as well, definitely a lot better than some of the other ones.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually the No Homo meme says a helluva lot about the US mentality around masculinity(a mentality that is spreading through the interwebs). I'd argue so does the "do you even lift brah" stuff and all that "Alpha" shíte. It's an incredibly narrow definition of male fostered by a culture that is a confusing culture of opposites. More, it's also a narrow definition of male attractiveness to women. Sure it will fly for a percentage of women, but it is incredibly selective by its very nature. Maybe it works for American women, particularly the millennial types(which TBH wouldn't altogether surprise me), but I'd personally find it too restrictive.

And that's running on some level of personal experience too. Being an oul fart, I've been around the block a fair bit and have seen a fair amount of man/woman interactions and not just my own and not just in Ireland. Now I am most certainly not pulling the "I'm older so I knows better, kids" ballsology here. That's a crock IME. Age doesn't bring wisdom in the majority, it just makes them better at papering up the cracks enough so they can settle into a comfortable rut(goes triple for older men. Older women are usually more open IME).

Anyway, the most successful with women guy I ever met? Short, pudgy with an unattractive mein(No Homo(tm). That lad pushed the biological limits of how penile skin cells could recover from excessive friction and his partners in friction ranged from "jaysus not with yours" to "so how are you getting her to the Ms World and Nobel ceremony afterward". If one was to ask him did he even lift? His answer would have been "yea pints" and he did this on three continents. His secret? He did not give a fcuk. Not a fcuk was ever given by him. He was very nice about it. He never got bitchy or any of that energy wasting guff He didn't see himself as the prize or any of that, mostly he saw the numbers. As I've oft said before, 50% of the folks out there are women. Them's good odds, so why settle for anything less than what you want? There are enough women out there, numbered in the millions, or thousands more locally that you will gel with and they with you. Oh and that stat goes for the ladies too.

Yeah, the guy with no fear who's comfortable with his sexual desires is going to crush the anti-social amateur bodybuilder/part time model every single time, not even on the same playing field.

Wibbs wrote: »

I've rambled enough(big fcuking shock), though I would say, at least in my personal experience that the more "action" you get, the less marriage, love and all that appeals. Many years back I had gone through a bad breakup and after all the feelz, I went mad for the hunt. Really slapper time. And the more I got into that ONS/mini flings/etc, the more the idea of permanence retreated. I saw too much, I saw behind the curtain and the script and got way too reductive about the whole thing. Just my humble, but I'd much rather to be back pre those days and be a little more open, even naive. I really would.

This is definitely something I worried about. It's very easy to get jaded about women. The reality isn't always pretty. I was with one girl who (convincingly I might add) still tells her parents, family, friends, etc. that she's a virgin at the age of 26. Extremely sweet, feminine, very "good girl" vibe. This girl would do absolutely anything I wanted though, going to strip clubs and trying to convince the strippers to come home with us was like our 3rd date I think.

I find that I'm a bit more understanding and am much less likely to hold women to masculine standards of behaviour now. Once you get past the "women are just men without penises" equalist nonsense I find it's much easier to accept women for how they are and appreciate the positives they can add to your life (besides the physical).

Wibbs

RedJoker wrote: »

I might have picked that up from American weight training sites although maybe it was from game as well.

Oh sure. Hell look how many people use "mom" these days, convinced it's an Irish thing. The interwebs and media is having that effect. Still the muscle thing is very strong these days in the whole PUA mindset and it is American in nature or at least that's the source of it. The weight sites may be an influence here. Maybe the culture itself, with increasing obesity and what seems to be an increasing sense of not belonging for many young American men? Because of this you get sub groups like the "incel" celibate types as well as the lifting types. The latter overcompensate for the feeling that maleness is under threat by going full caveman with muscles and "alpha" and "no homo". The "no homo" meme is itself a compensation because the culture isn't sure of itself and they're looking at other men's muscles, fretting over gains and cuts, so... It's all a bit Greek really...

Cold reading is still taught. If I was doing a direct approach then I'd usually transition with a cold read about where shes from or what she does.

I call that conversation.

Although maybe you're referring to the "I get the feeling you're the type of person who likes to have lots of friends and be social but sometimes you prefer to be by yourself" type stuff, that's pretty much gone.

Yea that nonsense and the NLP stuff. :rolleyes: That stuff is sure to a) attract the crazies and b) make some more crazy.

I only started reading the manosphere a few months ago. There is some really, really toxic stuff on there. Most of the return of kings content is just click bait and purposely antagonistic to get shares and cause controversy.

Very much so. And it works too. People are both easily led and easily fooled. I remember one of their "articles" came out(something about eating disorders or somesuch) and the offended were busily being offended and linking to the page on ArseBook, Twatter et al, and even here on Boards. Yea. Well done there. Duhhh.

Roosh has some really negative views of countries he can't get laid in.

Yep. He seems like an OK enough guy, but he has more issues than Time's back catalogue and as many as the click bait peddlers on Jezebel. He can't take much if any critique either. The number of banned long time posters on his forum attest to that. Then again critique could upset the earnings, so better to continue those living vicariously through him in "pussy paradise" to keep the clicks and money coming in.

Their comments on feminism and male shaming aren't far off the mark though

Oh they do make some good points alright. You have to dig mind you and because of their clickbait ethos they're only ever gonna preach to the choir, so it's wasted.

I find that I'm a bit more understanding and am much less likely to hold women to masculine standards of behaviour now.

In what way RJ? I'd have a fair idea of the general "manosphere" angle, but would be interested to hear your personal distillation of that. For me I agree with some of that manosphere angle, but much of it is well daft and generalistic and self selective with it.

RedJoker

Wibbs wrote: »

I call that conversation.

Yep, unnecessary and overly analytical but, again, not much use unless you understand it already. If you had "trigger words" explained to you your mind would explode with obviousness but for a lot of students it gets them through some major sticking points.

Wibbs wrote: »

In what way RJ? I'd have a fair idea of the general "manosphere" angle, but would be interested to hear your personal distillation of that. For me I agree with some of that manosphere angle, but much of it is well daft and generalistic and self selective with it.

There's not really any way to answer this without being labelled a "misogynist" is there?

Expecting women to say what they mean or mean what they say like I'd expect from a man.

A recent example. I had a date scheduled with the catwalk model, she text me that day to say she'd got her period and understood if I didn't want to see her. I told her it didn't bother me and I still wanted to see her. I was pretty shocked that she asked that and asked her that night if any guy had ever replied "oh really, yeah let's take a rain check so". They hadn't.

The same thing happened with the recent girl I've been seeing last week except she text to say that she'd got her period and was in a bad mood because of PMS so wouldn't be great company and she didn't want to meet up. Was any of that true? Nope. If you took that at face value then you'd think she was cancelling on me last minute because she was in a bad mood. Had I not had the previous experience I probably would have taken it at face value and might have been a bit annoyed with her. In reality she was saying she got her period and understands if I don't want to meet up but she'll give me plausible deniability to do it and make it seem like it's really her idea. I told her it didn't bother me and met her that night.

In both cases I thought it was really sweet that they'd ask.


Expecting rational thought processes like I would from a man. It's not that they don't have the capacity for logic or rational thought, it's just not their default. Just like men are capable of emotional communication and understanding layers of conversation but it's not their default either, for most guys it takes a bit of effort.

An example, one of my girlfriends warned me not to fly into Rio because they lose luggage and to fly into Sao Paulo instead. Did she pull up data on rates of lost luggage for different airports and find a statistically significant difference. Of course not. I asked her if a couple of her friends had lost their luggage flying there. I was being optimistic, it was one friend. I flew into Rio. My luggage was fine. Women have a tendency to generalise from their own experiences. Most arguments from women start with this is my experience and then some sloppy generalisations to everybody else. Men will typically start from the general and see if the anecdotal evidence matches but he's usually aware it's purely anecdotal evidence. I explained the flaw in her logic about the luggage and she understood. She had the capacity to understand it, it just wasn't her default and her advice was well intentioned.



So, instead of getting pissed off that they had almost cancelled a date last minute for no reason or made me fly into an airport miles away from where I wanted to be, I understood that their intentions were good and that, as women, they're not the same as me and I shouldn't expect them to be or hold them to the same standards of behaviour I hold myself.

There are more examples, therationalmale.com would have a lot. It follows the same general theme though. Women's behaviour can really mess your life up if you're not prepared and able to handle it. Most of the time their intentions are good and it's actually pretty adorable.

Mike747

Any negative reactions from your friends RedJoker? Any white knights try to hold you back?

Potatoeman

I got into weights about five years ago and I would recommend it. Even if you stop you dont lose the body mass built up. You dont even have to change your diet. Its not a new trend people usually are attracted to people with nice bodies so for guys its some muscles not bodybuilder levels. Its the same for women too guys are attracted to women with nice bodies.

RedJoker

Mike747 wrote: »

Any negative reactions from your friends RedJoker? Any white knights try to hold you back?

No, or at least never to my face anyway. When I mentioned to my mother that I had 3 girlfriends she was more curious than anything else and was happy when I told her that I make it clear to them it's not exclusive.

My (other) sister once made a remark about "quality women" during a conversation about it. When I asked her to elaborate on what she meant she quickly backed down. She's since met a couple of them and remarked how nice they are.

The quality woman thing is a myth anyway. http://therationalmale.com/2013/03/19/quality-women/ There's an awful lot of male shaming in media and society, it gets regurgitated without much thought. Guys bashing game are often guilty of this; it only works on a subset of women, "quality women" wouldn't fall for it, etc.


I haven't personally run into any white knights although a guy once told me about a time he approached a girl during the day and a random stranger came over and started shouting at him to leave her alone. Didn't help his approach anxiety much but I think he got over it.

Potatoeman

RedJoker wrote: »

No, or at least never to my face anyway. When I mentioned to my mother that I had 3 girlfriends she was more curious than anything else and was happy when I told her that I make it clear to them it's not exclusive.

My (other) sister once made a remark about "quality women" during a conversation about it. When I asked her to elaborate on what she meant she quickly backed down. She's since met a couple of them and remarked how nice they are.

The quality woman thing is a myth anyway. http://therationalmale.com/2013/03/19/quality-women/ There's an awful lot of male shaming in media and society, it gets regurgitated without much thought. Guys bashing game are often guilty of this; it only works on a subset of women, "quality women" wouldn't fall for it, etc.


I haven't personally run into any white knights although a guy once told me about a time he approached a girl during the day and a random stranger came over and started shouting at him to leave her alone. Didn't help his approach anxiety much but I think he got over it.

The term 'quality' used for either gender is kind of dumb and subjective. That said I would hope that any partner would be honest about their past.

Wibbs

RedJoker wrote: »

Yep, unnecessary and overly analytical but, again, not much use unless you understand it already. If you had "trigger words" explained to you your mind would explode with obviousness but for a lot of students it gets them through some major sticking points.

Gotcha but Jesus, what's a worry is that it seems more and more young men are reaching adulthood with a near sheldonesque level of basic social skills. There does seem to be more arrested development going on, where stuff men should be learning, failing and then learning basic social skills in adolescence is being delayed. Sure, back in my day of whale oil lamps and scurvy, you did have the odd guy like that, but they were "odd" in both senses of the word. They were outliers. Looking back they'd likely get a hard diagnoses along the autism spectrum, but again today that seems to be more prevalent. I've even seen it for myself when in the company of younger guys. More of a them and us thing with women too. And I went to a male only school, where they were seen as exotic creatures. Well until you got chatting and such and found out they were human. Big shock.

I suppose today it's far more easy to become isolated in ones teens(and beyond). Well faux isolated, in that you can be facebooked and twittered and forumed up among like minded people so it is a substitute for real social interaction. Again back in the day you'd be more likely to be spotted and helped in many ways.

Expecting women to say what they mean or mean what they say like I'd expect from a man.

OK...

A recent example. I had a date scheduled with the catwalk model, she text me that day to say she'd got her period and understood if I didn't want to see her. I told her it didn't bother me and I still wanted to see her. I was pretty shocked that she asked that and asked her that night if any guy had ever replied "oh really, yeah let's take a rain check so". They hadn't.

I'd be surprised if they had. Who would? That's a very odd pair of conversations. The only time I've had that come up was pre shagette. Maybe they're building women differently these days?

Expecting rational thought processes like I would from a man. It's not that they don't have the capacity for logic or rational thought, it's just not their default. Just like men are capable of emotional communication and understanding layers of conversation but it's not their default either, for most guys it takes a bit of effort.

Jesus you must know some ditzy women RJ, or are applying what you believe to be true and selection bias is in play. While I've often enough stood there scratching my head thinking "WTF is she on about or on now?" with women(hell and a few men too) down the years, I've honestly never had conversations like the Rio luggage one or even close and I've known some loolaas in my time. TBH if something like that kinda daftness was on the regular, she wouldn't be. That would melt my head clean off. I'd be in the parent role and sod that. The shrink role is also a jock too.

Women have a tendency to generalise from their own experiences.

As do men. Most people are very subjective in thought processes, it's just that very broadly that comes out differently in the genders. Though I would say that in general I have found far more women than men to be guilty of that.

Most arguments from women start with this is my experience and then some sloppy generalisations to everybody else. Men will typically start from the general and see if the anecdotal evidence matches but he's usually aware it's purely anecdotal evidence.

ORLY? You must not read that many threads in After Hours then.

as women, they're not the same as me and I shouldn't expect them to be or hold them to the same standards of behaviour I hold myself.

Funny enough I would be the complete opposite. I avoid daft people as much as possible and romantically damn right I do. Oh I've had a few loolaas as I said, but they were dropped PDQ when that stuff came out. Of the non loolaas I've gone out with, the behaviour you describe would be alien to them. It honestly would RJ.

TBH and just my take, the more I read of the PUA/Red pill/manoshpere stuff and the women they describe, the more and more I see selection bias for such women. And yes they do exist. Again being honest here, in my head I would very broadly divide women into "women" and "chicks". The Manosphere is describing "chicks" to a near scientific degree. They're like a stereotype of ditsy women. It would be akin to your Jezebel writers seeing men(tm) as sports mad neandertals with stunted emotions. Sure they exist too, but it's a stereotype. As for selection bias I knew a woman who saw men like that and every single time her boyfriends were that exact type. People like their worldview to be confirmed.

Guys bashing game are often guilty of this; it only works on a subset of women, "quality women" wouldn't fall for it, etc.

Following on from the above, I would contend that much of "game" is highly selective. The honest PUA types will describe this. The aforementioned Krauser dude who is an approaching women machine and has been for years and has honed his whole being to it, reckons his return on such approaches is something like 5 - 10%. It has improved massively since he first started out, but his results are coming from a minority of the women he approaches, so selection bias is a very strong possibility. Take two scenarios; night game and day game(yep I'm down with the kidz ). A guy good at one may not be good at another. Pubs and clubs are going to be much more visual for a start(like interwebs dating), so you have a different selection bias going on.

OK taking it to my personal life to illustrate what I'm getting at. Years ago now I was cheated on and emotionally kicked in the heartnuts by an ex. Boohoo me. Anyway after a period of mourning, I became a right slapper as a response to that. Over the few years I was at that point in my life the amount of women I got it on with who were cheating on boyfriends, even fiancés(I drew the line at married, even if they didn't) was scarily high. I mean we're not too far off a majority of them and the lies and the ease of lying to the guys they were with(some even claimed to love them) was unbelievable for me. If you'd asked me my opinion on women(tm) at the time I would have happily told you that you can trust the majority of them as far as you can throw them. And in my world at the time I would have been correct and if I was still in that mindset I'd be on various man forums going "hell no way can they be trusted". It was actually quite a depressing way to think TBH. Though somewhat comforting too. How I eased out of that was I have had a fair few women mates down the years. No hanky panky, actual friends. And looking at them and knowing them very well, there was only one that had cheated to any degree(and in that relationship there were two of them in it). The rest nope. None were saints or any of that, a few no way would I have gone out with as they made great mates but head melting girlfriends, but the vast majority weren't cheaters. I was positively selecting for a) women who were up for a fling and/or b) women who were likely to be disloyal and by god I was damned good at picking them out, just like bullies have a knack for spotting potential victims. I can even recall a few times backing off from a woman because she was "too nice". I wanted the cheating slapper types.

In short if you have a certain worldview, you will seek out examples that positively confirm that worldview and will ignore those examples that don't. Ive oft said that people would prefer to be proven right than be happy(those women who go out with an endless line of abusers a good example), but I would add to it by suggesting that people would prefer to be proven right than be objective. Human nature and that.

Wibbs

As for the "white knight" term? I dislike it as much as I dislike the "mansplaining" term. Yes both can be spot on the money at times, but all too often it's just another go to meme to shut down opposing arguments in a debate.

Mike747

Wibbs wrote: »

As for the "white knight" term? I dislike it as much as I dislike the "mansplaining" term. Yes both can be spot on the money at times, but all too often it's just another go to meme to shut down opposing arguments in a debate.

I have disagree. There are men out there who make it their goal to always stand up and defend women, usually because they're hoping to get sex in return for being the good guy. White knight is an appropriate term.

I get the impression from reading your posts (well I skim them because a lot of the them are very long) that you're something of a natural, you've never really had to work with women. Thing is, lots of guys have to put a lot of effort into this. PUA might teach you to talk in statements rather than questions and you might say 'but that's just conversation' but for many guys it's something they've never considered.

Definitely agree too many young men have major problems with social skills. Internet porn and computer games are the culprits I would say.

ancapailldorcha

Mike747 wrote: »

I have disagree. There are men out there who make it their goal to always stand up and defend women, usually because they're hoping to get sex in return for being the good guy. White knight is an appropriate term.

I think the feminists call these "nice guys (tm)". I agree with Wibbs, they're just casual dismissals used to stifle debate.

Mike747 wrote: »

I get the impression from reading your posts (well I skim them because a lot of the them are very long) that you're something of a natural, you've never really had to work with women. Thing is, lots of guys have to put a lot of effort into this. PUA might teach you to talk in statements rather than questions and you might say 'but that's just conversation' but for many guys it's something they've never considered.

Definitely agree too many young men have major problems with social skills. Internet porn and computer games are the culprits I would say.

The thing is, porn and computer games may only have enabled social anxiety and the like if they have played any sort of role which I very much doubt. A few decades back, most guys would have had to go to the pub to avoid looking weird. Technological advances have now made staying in not just pragmatic, but financially sound.

PUA can be beneficial to some guys and I think I might have been a bit quick to dismiss it. However, I don't think you get that much more from it than you could get from friends though if one had such good friends then they'd hardly be spending hundreds on bootcamps.

Wibbs

Mike747 wrote: »

I have disagree. There are men out there who make it their goal to always stand up and defend women, usually because they're hoping to get sex in return for being the good guy.

Or they simply disagree with another's opinions and perceptions of women. That's allowed like. It's very much like a term like mansplaining. Yes it can be applied, but as I say too often it's a shut down the debate tactic. Not nearly as bad as American "wymins studies" dross like "check your privilege", but in the same vein.

I get the impression from reading your posts (well I skim them because a lot of the them are very long) that you're something of a natural, you've never really had to work with women.

Oh god I have. I was daft as a brush for many a year. Missed obvious signs and that sorta thing. I'd say I was nigh on 30 before I grew outa that and ohmigod the opportunities missed, some damned regrettable ones too that I kicked myself about for years. If I could quantum tunnel my current mind into my 25 year old brain... To the degree that after I copped on I've even used the "I'm not reading your signals of interest" to increase interest.

Thing is, lots of guys have to put a lot of effort into this. PUA might teach you to talk in statements rather than questions and you might say 'but that's just conversation' but for many guys it's something they've never considered.

Yea to be fair I had one major advantage; I'll talk with anyone, male, female, nine to ninety or nine hours dead And was like that from the age of 14. I actually remember the exact incident that changed me. I was just standing in a queue for of all things a passport photo booth thing and out of the blue just decided feck this and started talking with the oul fella in front of me and then others in the queue. I dug the reaction I got and gave and went full social animal from then on in. Thing is you can get away with trying and more, failing at 14/15/16. It's expected that you will as you're learning. However doing the same thing at 25 or 30 or even more is way more difficult. Society expects you to know the social "rules" at those ages. It's easier to be a gauche teenager(even if it doesn't feel like that at the time), but much harder to be a gauche adult. IMHO it's doubly worse for men, in the dating stakes anyway. A "shy" woman has fewer issues, indeed being socially bashful can be seen as a plus, it can come across as coy. In an adult bloke it's often seen as awkward, or even weird. Plus it is more a "sellers market" for women, in that men are expected to approach. A shy, even socially awkward woman will generally get many more approaches than a shy, socially awkward man.

Mokuba

Good points from Wibbs about the generalisations and the confirmation bias.

I feel like a lot of these communities do try to pigeon-hole women. It can be an easy trap to fall into because a lot of the time people are driven there because of a negative experience with women. So when other people are telling you this is how they think and this is how they act, it's easy to be blinded by that. Obviously there are some women like that (they way Rational Male and others portrayed them), but there are plenty who aren't.

One redpill-ish thing I definitely agree with is self improvement though. If you start exercising regularly, start taking up new hobbies and start applying yourself more in the things you do while reducing distractions - you'll directly and indirectly improve your success rate with women. If you are confident in yourself, confident in the way you look, confident that you have some interesting hobbies that you are passionate about to distinguish yourself from the crowd - it goes a long way.

RedJoker

Wibbs wrote: »

Gotcha but Jesus, what's a worry is that it seems more and more young men are reaching adulthood with a near sheldonesque level of basic social skills. There does seem to be more arrested development going on, where stuff men should be learning, failing and then learning basic social skills in adolescence is being delayed. Sure, back in my day of whale oil lamps and scurvy, you did have the odd guy like that, but they were "odd" in both senses of the word. They were outliers. Looking back they'd likely get a hard diagnoses along the autism spectrum, but again today that seems to be more prevalent. I've even seen it for myself when in the company of younger guys. More of a them and us thing with women too. And I went to a male only school, where they were seen as exotic creatures. Well until you got chatting and such and found out they were human. Big shock.

I suppose today it's far more easy to become isolated in ones teens(and beyond). Well faux isolated, in that you can be facebooked and twittered and forumed up among like minded people so it is a substitute for real social interaction. Again back in the day you'd be more likely to be spotted and helped in many ways.

It's an interesting phenomenon alright, don't really have an opinion on why it's happening though.

Most of the guys I met through this were perfectly normal and well adjusted but were just hoping to improve their success with women. There is a difference between having normal social skills and having the skillset to cold approach women you're attracted to, it's pretty much impossible to do the latter without the former. Cold reading does take a bit of practice to get good at especially in a higher pressure social situation like cold approach.

Daygame in particular is one of the hardest social interactions you can put yourself into. They might be able to hold normal conversations in regular social situations but sometimes you need the process broken down a bit more to see that it's basically just the same thing, it's very easy to build it up too much in your head especially if you've never done it before.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be surprised if they had. Who would? That's a very odd pair of conversations. The only time I've had that come up was pre shagette. Maybe they're building women differently these days?

That's exactly what I thought tbh. It's only happened those two times, maybe it's because I'm coming across a lot more sexual now and they felt the need to mention it where they wouldn't with other guys. She didn't actually say she'd said it to other guys come to think of it, I just asked her had that ever happened with another guy and she said no. Admittedly she was a little more on the crazy side but I told her I was seeing other girls at the same time so she might have just been reacting badly to that, rather than being legit crazy. It eventually fizzled out anyway.

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus you must know some ditzy women RJ, or are applying what you believe to be true and selection bias is in play. While I've often enough stood there scratching my head thinking "WTF is she on about or on now?" with women(hell and a few men too) down the years, I've honestly never had conversations like the Rio luggage one or even close and I've known some loolaas in my time. TBH if something like that kinda daftness was on the regular, she wouldn't be. That would melt my head clean off. I'd be in the parent role and sod that. The shrink role is also a jock too.

I wouldn't describe them as ditzy but I do have a preference for feminine women. There are some draw backs to this but the opposite extreme of "strong, independent women"(tm) are too insufferable for me. I'll take a sweet, pleasant, feminine girl with long flowing hair every time even if her logic isn't always top notch. A woman who's trying to make herself a pseudo man is a big turn off for me and I'm not convinced that logic is going to be her default mode even if she's using that capacity more often. I like having my protective instincts used and those girls tend to bring it out in me more, their behaviour tends to be a lot more submissive.

Of the examples I gave, they're all college educated (not sure about the catwalk model actually, I can't remember), one is studying for another degree. One worked as a financial trader, another as a consultant hotel event planner. They all speak at least 2 languages fluently, have all travelled extensively, 2 of them bought their parents a new house with the money they were earning. Perhaps it's a case of English not being their native language and things getting slightly lost in translation although I don't think so.

My approach tends to be very low energy and sexual so I'd typically struggle to get ditzy girls to stay still long enough. Higher energy party guys would have more success with that demographic and I wouldn't especially enjoy the company of ditzy girls anyway given my background.

Wibbs wrote: »

As do men. Most people are very subjective in thought processes, it's just that very broadly that comes out differently in the genders. Though I would say that in general I have found far more women than men to be guilty of that.

Sure.

Wibbs wrote: »

ORLY? You must not read that many threads in After Hours then.

I don't. I'm not claiming it's non existant in men of course, just talking general gender biases.

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough I would be the complete opposite. I avoid daft people as much as possible and romantically damn right I do. Oh I've had a few loolaas as I said, but they were dropped PDQ when that stuff came out. Of the non loolaas I've gone out with, the behaviour you describe would be alien to them. It honestly would RJ.

Warning me against flying to a particular airport due to her friend losing baggage one time might not be particularly logical but it hardly makes her crazy. Having girls tell me they're on their period and asking if I still wanted to meet up was a new occurrence to me, not sure what to make of it yet but it could be a reaction to me rather than something they do regularly. Maybe they were just hormonal. I'd be in the same boat about avoiding crazies so perhaps I do need to take a closer look at their behaviour. The whole red flag thing can turn into a bit of paranoia though.

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH and just my take, the more I read of the PUA/Red pill/manoshpere stuff and the women they describe, the more and more I see selection bias for such women. And yes they do exist. Again being honest here, in my head I would very broadly divide women into "women" and "chicks". The Manosphere is describing "chicks" to a near scientific degree. They're like a stereotype of ditsy women. It would be akin to your Jezebel writers seeing men(tm) as sports mad neandertals with stunted emotions. Sure they exist too, but it's a stereotype. As for selection bias I knew a woman who saw men like that and every single time her boyfriends were that exact type. People like their worldview to be confirmed.

For manosphere "alpha" type stuff I'd agree with you, there probably does tend to be a bias. Game in general has guys who are looking for a much wider spectrum of relationships, many of whom would be repelled by manosphere content.

Wibbs wrote: »

Following on from the above, I would contend that much of "game" is highly selective. The honest PUA types will describe this. The aforementioned Krauser dude who is an approaching women machine and has been for years and has honed his whole being to it, reckons his return on such approaches is something like 5 - 10%. It has improved massively since he first started out, but his results are coming from a minority of the women he approaches, so selection bias is a very strong possibility. Take two scenarios; night game and day game(yep I'm down with the kidz ). A guy good at one may not be good at another. Pubs and clubs are going to be much more visual for a start(like interwebs dating), so you have a different selection bias going on.

5-10% is good for daygame. However, there's a couple of issues with your argument here. 5-10% is the rate for sleeping with the woman. A much, much higher percentage will give their number, some will drop off before the date, some will drop off on the date, some will come home and do a certain amount but might not sleep with him. Some will not be tolerable enough to warrant spending the time required to get all the way, I've certainly had that happen before. And 5-10% make it all the way to sex. So it's a little misleading to say it only works on a small subset. We're also (usually) talking about very attractive women with a lot of options so that's going to reduce success rates just because of higher levels of competition.

Of the girls who don't give their number the vast majority will have boyfriends. In a nightclub there's a selection bias for single girls (and girls who are attached but willing to cheat), during the day you get a broader spectrum. Some percentage are using it as a polite excuse of course, although I went through a phase of asking and the girls went into detail about it. Again, it's possible they're really good liars. I've had girls apologise profusely for having boyfriends during daygame though. They're usually very attractive girls so it's not that surprising that a large percentage would have boyfriends and they're unlikely to cheat completely sober after a 5-10 minute conversation. I can sometimes even tell before I ask for the number that they have a boyfriend, they get into this funny "I shouldn't be talking to you but I really want to" back and forth with themselves. Some just aren't interested and say no. Some are leaving the country soon. Sometimes I don't even ask for the number or ask just because it would feel weird not to and then not text them.

Second issue is that the 5-10% isn't going to perfectly overlap across all the different guys. Or maybe 50% if we're talking about girls who give their number. So, of the available girls there might be a tiny minority who wouldn't give their number out to any guy who approached during the day purely on principle but otherwise I don't think there's much selection bias at all.

There's a lot of different preferences as well. I'm not into Asian girls at all but some guys will approach Asian girls exclusively. There was one guy on my bootcamp who had a preference for larger women. Some like really feminine girls, some like hipsters, some like girls in professional office attire, etc., etc. As an overall group I don't think there's much selection bias although subgroups such as the manosphere might be a little different.

I've been with girls from daygame, nightgame, online and social circle. Can't think of any strong biases for me personally. Nightgame tends to be the most short term, very rarely had anything long term from it although I don't tend to go out that much. It tends to be the best for short term hookups although that's not a huge goal for me, I try to find girls I really like and keep them around.

Wibbs wrote: »

OK taking it to my personal life to illustrate what I'm getting at. Years ago now I was cheated on and emotionally kicked in the heartnuts by an ex. Boohoo me. Anyway after a period of mourning, I became a right slapper as a response to that. Over the few years I was at that point in my life the amount of women I got it on with who were cheating on boyfriends, even fiancés(I drew the line at married, even if they didn't) was scarily high. I mean we're not too far off a majority of them and the lies and the ease of lying to the guys they were with(some even claimed to love them) was unbelievable for me. If you'd asked me my opinion on women(tm) at the time I would have happily told you that you can trust the majority of them as far as you can throw them. And in my world at the time I would have been correct and if I was still in that mindset I'd be on various man forums going "hell no way can they be trusted". It was actually quite a depressing way to think TBH. Though somewhat comforting too. How I eased out of that was I have had a fair few women mates down the years. No hanky panky, actual friends. And looking at them and knowing them very well, there was only one that had cheated to any degree(and in that relationship there were two of them in it). The rest nope. None were saints or any of that, a few no way would I have gone out with as they made great mates but head melting girlfriends, but the vast majority weren't cheaters. I was positively selecting for a) women who were up for a fling and/or b) women who were likely to be disloyal and by god I was damned good at picking them out, just like bullies have a knack for spotting potential victims. I can even recall a few times backing off from a woman because she was "too nice". I wanted the cheating slapper types.

I'd agree with you, the vast majority of women in my experience as well are loyal and won't cheat.

I've never had a woman cheat on her boyfriend from a daygame approach, nor have I heard of anybody who has either. I've gotten numbers or facebooks from girls with boyfriends during daygame where it's a case of having a great conversation with them and saying I'll check in with you in a few months and if you're single then we can meet up. I've seen guys take numbers from girls during daygame who's relationships were seriously on the rocks and still not be able to get anywhere. Generally it's not worth the additional effort, better to go find single girls. I've told the girls I'm seeing that we're not exclusive and they always say they have no interest in seeing other guys, I've never had any suspicions that they were either. Outside of f*** buddy type deals obviously.

The girls with boyfriends who are out alone in a nightclub though...yeah there's some selection bias there alright.

Wibbs wrote: »

In short if you have a certain worldview, you will seek out examples that positively confirm that worldview and will ignore those examples that don't. Ive oft said that people would prefer to be proven right than be happy(those women who go out with an endless line of abusers a good example), but I would add to it by suggesting that people would prefer to be proven right than be objective. Human nature and that.

For me I started with a list of things I was looking for and gradually, after experiencing different girls, I changed my preferences. Same thing with physical features, I noticed trends in the types of girls I was most attracted to and it made approach decisions much easier. As I mentioned, I do have a preference for feminine women, which was acquired over time. So I might be confirming my world view of not holding women to masculine standards of behaviour.

Mokuba

And a solid response from RJ.

Very interesting to read.

Wibbs

Mokuba wrote: »

confirmation bias.

That's the term I was looking for in what passes for my brain. Thanks M *thumbs up*

I feel like a lot of these communities do try to pigeon-hole women. It can be an easy trap to fall into because a lot of the time people are driven there because of a negative experience with women. So when other people are telling you this is how they think and this is how they act, it's easy to be blinded by that. Obviously there are some women like that (they way Rational Male and others portrayed them), but there are plenty who aren't.

Ignore my ramblings, this is what I was attempting to say.

Yea you don't get too many posters on places like the return of kings forum saying "my (native english speaking) girlfriend is great actually. Bit daft at times, but you know women Amirite? Naw she's great, we support each other and are a great partnership". If one did hove into view, he'd be banned, and/or replying posts would be along the lines of "oh just you wait until her hypergamy kicks in and she becomes a land whale and divorce rapes you and takes your kids and all your cash" and similar stuff. I do wonder what women these guys are meeting, I really do. It's like they're thundering wagon magnets of something.

American women seem to bear the brunt. They're the recognised evil it seems. I've little enough experience with American women, but of that experience a few were daft, most were normal and two I can think of were incredibly together people and very loving with it(one is married to a mate of mine). Then again these were older, 30's and 40's and all were from the flyover square good ol boy states, maybe the east/west coats urban types are different, especially if they're the generation M that these guys are dealing with. I dunno TBH.

Then again as I have said more than once IME when you talk to local guys of any culture and ask an opinion of the local women, you get a similar if not as harsh kinda response. The grass is always greener. EG your Roosh types and others are gung ho for Eastern European ladies, The Ukraine* is apparently ground zero for HB9's who are graceful and feminine etc, yet(when I was seeing a Ukrainian lass) I've personally heard Ukrainian men bitch that Ukrainian women are all high maintenance gold diggers who are all about the labels. It seems universal and as I've also reckoned my theory is it's partially a biological urge to mix genes with the non local.

One redpill-ish thing I definitely agree with is self improvement though. If you start exercising regularly, start taking up new hobbies and start applying yourself more in the things you do while reducing distractions - you'll directly and indirectly improve your success rate with women. If you are confident in yourself, confident in the way you look, confident that you have some interesting hobbies that you are passionate about to distinguish yourself from the crowd - it goes a long way.

+1.






*I'm old so I add a "the". Hell it's a struggle for me not to say "the Argentine"...

RedJoker

Mokuba wrote: »

Obviously there are some women like that (they way Rational Male and others portrayed them), but there are plenty who aren't.

I wouldn't say that Rational Male is portraying them like that, although I understand getting that impression. He's talking about underlying biological drives. We're all capable of overcoming our base biological drives (yep, even women :eek:) but they still exist under the surface and affect our behaviour. Sometimes they come out in obvious ways and make good examples to illustrate a concept but that's different than saying all women are like that. Evolutionary biology/psychology is a fascinating subject, it's still a new area of course and it would be foolish to take everything as gospel.

The other sites I would agree with you definitely generalise negative behaviours from a very small subset of women to the majority.

RedJoker

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea you don't get too many posters on places like the return of kings forum saying "my (native english speaking) girlfriend is great actually. Bit daft at times, but you know women Amirite? Naw she's great, we support each other and are a great partnership". If one did hove into view, he'd be banned, and/or replying posts would be along the lines of "oh just you wait until her hypergamy kicks in and she becomes a land whale and divorce rapes you and takes your kids and all your cash" and similar stuff. I do wonder what women these guys are meeting, I really do. It's like they're thundering wagon magnets of something.

American women seem to bear the brunt. They're the recognised evil it seems. I've little enough experience with American women, but of that experience a few were daft, most were normal and two I can think of were incredibly together people and very loving with it(one is married to a mate of mine). Then again these were older, 30's and 40's and all were from the flyover square good ol boy states, maybe the east/west coats urban types are different, especially if they're the generation M that these guys are dealing with. I dunno TBH.

Then again as I have said more than once IME when you talk to local guys of any culture and ask an opinion of the local women, you get a similar if not as harsh kinda response. The grass is always greener. EG your Roosh types and others are gung ho for Eastern European ladies, The Ukraine* is apparently ground zero for HB9's who are graceful and feminine etc, yet(when I was seeing a Ukrainian lass) I've personally heard Ukrainian men bitch that Ukrainian women are all high maintenance gold diggers who are all about the labels. It seems universal and as I've also reckoned my theory is it's partially a biological urge to mix genes with the non local.

I've been with a few American girls and they were all great, no problems at all. Actually, scratch that, one of them was crazy. She turned up in my house the next day and called me repeatedly to come out that night even though I was sleeping. But the majority were wonderful.

I've definitely noticed the grass is always greener effect. I think part of that is because you generally get a skewed view of other cultures. The people who traveled to get here are usually going to be the more open and adventurous types and you get an overly positive impression. When you're in a different country you're non-local and are going to be treated differently as such.

I've been with a couple of Eastern Europeans but they're not really my type strangely enough, despite liking feminine women.

Wibbs

Good post RJ and by god you're matching me for the word count, though soundly thrashing me for information imparted.

RedJoker wrote: »

I wouldn't describe them as ditzy but I do have a preference for feminine women. There are some draw backs to this but the opposite extreme of "strong, independent women"(tm) are too insufferable for me. I'll take a sweet, pleasant, feminine girl with long flowing hair every time even if her logic isn't always top notch.

Which is cool RJ and that's certainly a preference(one not exactly lauded these days either). Like you given the choice of extremes between the self described "strong, independent women"(tm) or the Girly girl(tm), I'd also go for the latter. The former are just too much bloody hard work and the cognitive dissonance is strooong. It's like pulling teeth. I've vacillated between the two extremes myself in the past. Though after a time, I looked for the middle path(ta v much Mr Buddha) being attracted to women who were both "feminine" and "strong". I found being essentially the daddy figure got real old really quickly. For me anyway and given I have a history of age gap relationships with a couple who had full on Elektra complexes... The fully formed adult woman who is an addition to my life(and me for her) is soooo much easier to deal with. That said, no way could you have convinced my 25 year old self of this, so maybe it's generational and age based?

You mentioned your girlfriends quallies and achievements and fair play to them. IME I found that kinda thing was not very indicative of a dominant or submissive or masculine or feminine personality though. If anything the opposite. More often IME the more self described strong and feminist(with a small, but loud f) had fewer quallies and achievements to their name.

I like having my protective instincts used and those girls tend to bring it out in me more, their behaviour tends to be a lot more submissive.

Again for me RJ that would have appealed to me when younger. Very much so. To the degree that too often I was daddy and shrink, thinking this was normal. Like I say, it got real old real quick. That's just me of course, YMMV and more power to you.

I'd agree with you, the vast majority of women in my experience as well are loyal and won't cheat.

+1000, though what that period did tell me was that men, even the most clued in men can be woefully bad at judging the minority.

I've never had a woman cheat on her boyfriend from a daygame approach, nor have I heard of anybody who has either.

I have, though it wasn't called day game at the time. It was through work connections mostly.

I've seen guys take numbers from girls during daygame who's relationships were seriously on the rocks and still not be able to get anywhere.

TBH those were one of my "targets". They were more ripe for a change of pace. I think were the PUA types may lose out there is the "game" stuff they apply. They run with the sexual/alpha vibe. IME and IMH the woman in the on the rocks period is far more open to the emotional connection. More often than not it's that which she is lacking in her current relationship, rather than than the sexual and that's what I used. yep, I was a grade A cúnt TBH. Not wilfully, but I knew I was working the levers to some degree.

Generally it's not worth the additional effort, better to go find single girls.

Agreed, though again I did find that single could be a nebulous concept especially if they were in that "on the rocks, but looking" vibe. Quite the number of women(more than men anyway. likely more to do with opportunity) do rolling monogamy, where they jump from a sinking ship to a lifeboat while the ship is still above the waves. As it were. I'll bet that any men and women reading this have a woman mate that is never single for any length of time and seem to find blokes out of the blue. In a lot of cases there is overlap going on. I was nearly always the transitional guy, the lifeboat. The guy after me was the more "serious", the new ship. At one point there was a running joke that if you want to meet the love of your life/get hitched, snog me and wait a month.

The girls with boyfriends who are out alone in a nightclub though...yeah there's some selection bias there alright.

Yep.

As I mentioned, I do have a preference for feminine women, which was acquired over time. So I might be confirming my world view of not holding women to masculine standards of behaviour.

Maybe RJ and fair play and you shouldn't be pilloried for that choice either and well you might be. If both parties are up for that and on the same page I say game ball.