The popularity and ethics of PUAs and similar communities

ancapailldorcha

I’ve noticed that the pickup artist (PUA) community seems to be becoming more and more mainstream lately. I’ve no interest in it myself thought I do find the rise in popularity intriguing. From what I know, PUA involves honing a routine and attempting to engage women in conversation with the aim of a one-night stand or a casual fling. It seems to work on a subset of women, just as some men can be wound around the little fingers of some women. From the ads I’ve seen, the PUAs know this and encourage their acolytes to treat approaching women as a numbers game and so they approach as many women as possible.

There seems to be a growing amount of BS emanating primarily at least from the US aimed at young men, specifically those who’ve yet to experience a relationship or any sort of romantic interaction with the opposite sex. Most of this portrays women quite negatively and the PUA sites seem to be no exception. Women are strongly encouraged today in both professional and personal endeavours, which is fantastic. There doesn’t seem to be any similar message for young men leaving a void which ends up being filled by PUAs, “red pillers” and misogynists in general.

I find it disturbing that such groups prey on the loneliness of young men spreading this message that women are little more than targets and prizes rather than people worth knowing. I was offered a free workshop myself once. The idea of putting up pretence just to attain one-night stands has no appeal to me. The PUAs fill a role in an ethically questionable manner. However, there seems to be no alternate message for young men which likely explains it’s growing popularity.

Do ye agree? Any thoughts?

Mod note: As per the charter, “Discussion of Pick-Up-Artists (PUA) methods and techniques are not allowed on this forum.” This thread is not for discussing PUA methods and/or strategies, merely for discussing the reasons for it’s growing popularity. Please bear this in mind before posting.

In order to eliminate re reg trolls, we ask new posters who are registered for less than ten days, with post counts of fewer than twenty posts, not to post on this thread. Trolls will be banned and their posts deleted.

Mike747

As far as I understand pua began as group of men hanging out on web forums in the 90's sharing tips on how to attract women. Eventually some of the original guys like Mystery started doing seminars and bootcamps and began making money out of it. When Neil Strauss (who was involved in scene far longer than he admits) published his book, pua became mainstream and went from a community to an industry.

I think there are three reasons why there is so much negativity surrounding pua

1. Most men hate the idea of admitting they need help with women.
2. When they see other men engaging with pua, it stirs up feelings of jealousy and insecurity
3. Women do not want men to figure out the game since they hold almost all the power in that area of life. As such men who engage with pua are mocked as nerds, creeps and fedora wearers.

ancapailldorcha

Mike747 wrote: »

As far as I understand pua began as group of men hanging out on web forums in the 90's sharing tips on how to attract women. Eventually some of the original guys like Mystery started doing seminars and bootcamps and began making money out of it. When Neil Strauss (who was involved in scene far longer than he admits) published his book, pua became mainstream and went from a community to an industry.

I think this was how it caught on as well. I'm about a fifth of the way through The Game and it mentions him touring abroad.

Mike747 wrote: »

I think there are three reasons why there is so much negativity surrounding pua

1. Most men hate the idea of admitting they need help with women.
2. When they see other men engaging with pua, it stirs up feelings of jealousy and insecurity.

I'm going to disagree with you here. These people prey on lonely young men offering them solutions and advice they could find online. It's a money-making racket, plain and simple. If other guys want to throw away their hard won cash on this, that's their call.

Mike747 wrote: »

3. Women do not want men to figure out the game since they hold almost all the power in that area of life. As such men who engage with pua are mocked as nerds, creeps and fedora wearers.

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory so much as it is about numbers, especially in regards to online dating where women are outnumbered by men significantly. Add to that the superficial ethos of the whole thing and it's no surprise to see a lot of guys, myself included give up on it altogether. The PUA thing as I understand it involves teaching guys to dress well and approach every girl they find attractive. Most will brush them off, but as long as say, they can convince 5% that they're interesting then they'll achieve success 1 time out of every 20 approaches. A woman at work, upon finding out I was single and that I'd approached one girl in the past year told me that I needed to "play the numbers game". Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather have a conversation for the sake of having a conversation than as a means to get someone into bed.
I'm skeptical regarding your assertion that women "hold all the power" in this area. I find it hard to believe that the average woman could have any man, or woman in some scenarios she fancies just by winking at him/her.

the evasion_kid

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think this was how it caught on as well. I'm about a fifth of the way through The Game and it mentions him touring abroad.



I'm going to disagree with you here. These people prey on lonely young men offering them solutions and advice they could find online. It's a money-making racket, plain and simple. If other guys want to throw away their hard won cash on this, that's their call.


I don't think it's a conspiracy theory so much as it is about numbers, especially in regards to online dating where women are outnumbered by men significantly. Add to that the superficial ethos of the whole thing and it's no surprise to see a lot of guys, myself included give up on it altogether. The PUA thing as I understand it involves teaching guys to dress well and approach every girl they find attractive. Most will brush them off, but as long as say, they can convince 5% that they're interesting then they'll achieve success 1 time out of every 20 approaches. A woman at work, upon finding out I was single and that I'd approached one girl in the past year told me that I needed to "play the numbers game". Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather have a conversation for the sake of having a conversation than as a means to get someone into bed.
I'm skeptical regarding your assertion that women "hold all the power" in this area. I find it hard to believe that the average woman could have any man, or woman in some scenarios she fancies just by winking at him/her.

Go onto any dating site and you'll see fairly quickly how women hold most of the power

ancapailldorcha

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Go onto any dating site and you'll see fairly quickly how women hold most of the power

I've been on 2, 3 if you count Tinder. The ratio is horribly skewed online.

the evasion_kid

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've been on 2, 3 if you count Tinder. The ratio is horribly skewed online.

I've an old tagged account that I hadn't used in years went on it again there recently and holy suffering fcuk is all that I will say! I dunno about ratio but you really see how the whole thing is skewed in women's favor and how they use it to their advantage.

ancapailldorcha

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I've an old tagged account that I hadn't used in years went on it again there recently and holy suffering fcuk is all that I will say! I dunno about ratio but you really see how the whole thing is skewed in women's favor and how they use it to their advantage.

Fortunately, the real world is quite different but it's not much easier.

fits

the evasion_kid wrote: »

I've an old tagged account that I hadn't used in years went on it again there recently and holy suffering fcuk is all that I will say! I dunno about ratio but you really see how the whole thing is skewed in women's favor and how they use it to their advantage.

I'm a bit baffled by this. Was on briefly a few years ago and the amount of ****e you'd get. If someone had a basic grasp of English they were ahead of 90% of users. How exactly is it 'skewed' in women's favour?

ancapailldorcha

fits wrote: »

I'm a bit baffled by this. Was on briefly a few years ago and the amount of ****e you'd get. If someone had a basic grasp of English they were ahead of 90% of users. How exactly is it 'skewed' in women's favour?

I think the issue is that there are about 10-100 times more men than women on these things, though perhaps not the free ones. I may have good English but any message I send will end up among the sea of trash girls get on these things. I wouldn't say "skewed in women's favour" myself as there are caveats for both genders in dating.

KomradeBishop

There's a lot of crossover between PUA stuff and the mens rights stuff, as well as the gamergate stuff - there is a lot of propaganda being aimed at socially disaffected men online (as you hint at in the OP), to try to fool them into adopting this kind of stuff, and it seems to be working on a large scale.


Personally, I think this is a sign of broader problems in society, with the 'atomisation of society' (a term I've read elsewhere), where people (guys primarily, but women also - when it comes to the financial side) are encouraged to be emotionally-strong (i.e. emotionally-distant) self-sufficient individuals (particularly financially self-sufficient, which more and more today, means devoting excessive amounts of time to work and away from socializing), when this is more likely to lead to situations where a growing subset of people become socially disaffected or isolated.

This atomization, largely ties into the economic system we are in and the economic morals promoted to support it (hyper-individualism and self-sufficiency), and it's being exacerbated by the way this economic system has become dysfunctional, how it has created permanently high-unemployment + a tougher labour-market/working-environment (with more time devoted, with less rewards as a factor of cost-of-living), with no end in sight, which means a lot of people in society now find that their future prospects are greatly reduced (maybe even permanently limited, for many of the unemployed).

So, the economic morals of hyper-individualism and self-sufficiency promoted among people in society, are now impossible for everybody to reach (even if some or most can) - an impossible goal has been set, yet societies economic morals expect people to strive for that goal (despite it being impossible for many) - and this is inevitably going to be a large blow to a lot of peoples moral, when they are negatively affected by this (which can include negatively affecting them socially); helping to create the kind of disaffection that groups in the OP can exploit.


It's also very useful for those who want to keep the current broken economic system: Promoting nonsense that pits men/women against each other, is a great distraction from the real economic issues that are actually the cause of these underlying societal problems.
There's backing for this with mens rights stuff, as I've found funding of mens-rights organizations from wealthy/Libertarian think-tanks, however I have not looked into PUA stuff yet, to see if there are similar funding connections for that (but it would not surprise me, seeing how closely these movements overlap).

Wibbs

I was mostly with you until the Libertarian connection. Some mens rights stuff is indeed right wing, others are hard left hippie cum by ya leaning types. PUA and those types? Unlikely. Much of the current PUA/Game ethos is to get out of working in a cubicle for "the man", avoiding debt, finding some way to earn money remotely and go off and live in a non western country where the streets are paved with "hot body 9's". If anything it's very much anti the "American Dream" and capitalism and Libertarianism. They want to eject from the ret race and consumerist thinking. Plus your "red pill" types aren't trying to change society. That's their whole point. Their ethos is about recognising the reality(as they see it) behind the mask of society hence the Matrix reference and either avoiding it entirely, or capitalising on it because they "know the secret".

KomradeBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

I was mostly with you until the Libertarian connection. Some mens rights stuff is indeed right wing, others are hard left hippie cum by ya leaning types. PUA and those types? Unlikely. Much of the current PUA/Game ethos is to get out of working in a cubicle for "the man", avoiding debt, finding some way to earn money remotely and go off and live in a non western country where the streets are paved with "hot body 9's". If anything it's very much anti the "American Dream" and capitalism and Libertarianism. They want to eject from the ret race and consumerist thinking. Plus your "red pill" types aren't trying to change society. That's their whole point. Their ethos is about recognising the reality(as they see it) behind the mask of society hence the Matrix reference and either avoiding it entirely, or capitalising on it because they "know the secret".

Well, for example a lot of mens rights activists use the Independent Women's Forum (a Koch i.e. Libertarian funded, anti-feminist organization) for attacking feminism, and a lot of the gamergate and related stuff has a massive whiff of being an astroturfing campaign (not too dissimilar to how the Koch's funded tea-party astroturfing) - and you see Libertarian/Koch-funded magazines like Reason being one of the more notable platforms for anti-feminist views used by the mens rights movement.

There's a very definite connection there - but I don't know if that connection extends to PUA stuff yet.

The stuff you describe there, "get out of working in a cubicle for "the man", avoiding debt, finding some way to earn money remotely and go off and live in a non western country", that counts I reckon, as part of the unattainable-for-many 'self-sufficiency' stuff, which I view as being a part of the 'economic morals' I described above - that actually seems to be very pro "American-Dream"/Capitalism/Libertarian, from my perspective


To clarify though: I don't think any of the mens rights or PUA stuff is actually grounded in Libertarian views - I think it's just being exploited and promoted by wealthy Libertarian think-tanks, because it's politically useful to do that - using/drawing people to these movements as 'useful idiots'.

Gits_bone

Most men want to pull on a night out. How do they do it? They have a strategy.

"Can I get a light off ya?". That's one way. A strategy.

Do they act the exact same way around their friends as they do the women they are chatting up? Not in my experience. They'll become nicer and complimentary and maybe even change their opinions on things to agree with the woman? (Oh you like this song? Yeah I think it's decent alright.)

I don't think any PUA techniques try and trick the woman into thinking they're looking for a serious relationship.

ancapailldorcha

Gits_bone wrote: »

Most men want to pull on a night out. How do they do it? They have a strategy.

"Can I get a light off ya?". That's one way. A strategy.

Do they act the exact same way around their friends as they do the women they are chatting up? Not in my experience. They'll become nicer and complimentary and maybe even change their opinions on things to agree with the woman? (Oh you like this song? Yeah I think it's decent alright.)

I don't think any PUA techniques try and trick the woman into thinking they're looking for a serious relationship.

I'd call that an icebreaker as opposed to a thought out strategy.

When you're chatting to your friends, you're just chatting. When you're approaching a prospective romantic partner, you attach an emotional weight to the interaction which is where the anxiety, tension and nerves come from.

The PUA thing, AFAIK, involves convincing women that the PUA has "clicked" with her which may lead her to think that a LTR may be possible. I'm out of my depth on that one.

lazybones32

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do ye agree? Any thoughts?

PUA is not mainstream in Eire. The only National reference I've heard comes from a bunch of (presumably) feminists who want to prevent the free passage of a foreign National to these shores because they don't like what he 'teaches'(?) That could be a thread of it's own but I'll stay on point.

"From what I know, PUA involves honing a routine and attempting to engage women in conversation with the aim of a one-night stand or a casual fling." Have you ever been in a nightclub? Or even a Youth Club disco? Maybe women wear low-cut tops in Winter to increase the air-flow between their breasts...for hygiene and health reasons only. (I like looking at breasts, so I've no problem with whatever reason ample-bosomed women use)


Young men who aren't naturally confident, charismatic or charming with the ladies are going to seek help from some source; be it his dad, brother, uncle, friend or the local cassanova. If PUA's supply them with information on how to break the ice and improve their interactions with the opposite sex, then more power to them I say. If you think that women are more prone to be 'tricked' into sex by the saying of a few words and a few actions, then you may need to reassess whether you think women are mentally capable of being in charge of themselves.

"prey on the loneliness of young men.." - they are offering them ways to alleviate this loneliness by interacting with women. I trust young men to be able to take what they need from it and use it accordingly. The man-whore will continue humping whatever he can and the guy who wants a gf might receive help in getting one.

"women are little more than targets and prizes rather than people worth knowing." Is this a statement of a PUA or is it your interpretation? Getting with a woman is sometimes referred to as "scoring", so you might be onto something there...but why is it, that when a man wants a casual relationship with a woman, it can be bad but when a woman wants one, it can be 'empowering'?

iptba

Regarding men's rights stuff: there are lots of reasons people are interested in this stuff. Similarly if one is anti-feminist: if one is a logical thinker one can get fed up listening to claims for decades that feminism is about working for equality when it is is more like a woman's trade union, focusing on women's interests. I don't accept that being interested in such issues says anything about people who are interested in it in the same way I imagine that feminists wouldn't accept it shows anything about them e.g. the view that was put out that if you were uglier you were more likely to be a feminist.

astonaidan

You realise a lot off PUA forums are not about routines and stuff like that, its more explaining that having confidence and being fun around girls helps you get girls, It actually explains in a lot off places that the routines may help you sleep with a girl but its never going to be a long term thing.
I follow one, the guys on it give me great ideas for dates, clothes, hairstyles.
An outsiders few on where ive been going wrong with girls etc.

ancapailldorcha

lazybones32 wrote: »

PUA is not mainstream in Eire. The only National reference I've heard comes from a bunch of (presumably) feminists who want to prevent the free passage of a foreign National to these shores because they don't like what he 'teaches'(?) That could be a thread of it's own but I'll stay on point.

It's been getting some attention in the media especially with that chap and the media. The Guardian's had a pop at it from time to time:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/12/pua-pick-up-artists-julien-blanc-dapper-laughs

lazybones32 wrote: »

"From what I know, PUA involves honing a routine and attempting to engage women in conversation with the aim of a one-night stand or a casual fling." Have you ever been in a nightclub? Or even a Youth Club disco? Maybe women wear low-cut tops in Winter to increase the air-flow between their breasts...for hygiene and health reasons only. (I like looking at breasts, so I've no problem with whatever reason ample-bosomed women use)

Young men who aren't naturally confident, charismatic or charming with the ladies are going to seek help from some source; be it his dad, brother, uncle, friend or the local cassanova. If PUA's supply them with information on how to break the ice and improve their interactions with the opposite sex, then more power to them I say. If you think that women are more prone to be 'tricked' into sex by the saying of a few words and a few actions, then you may need to reassess whether you think women are mentally capable of being in charge of themselves.

It's the absurd amount they charge for these bootcamps. I'm not saying that they can't help with confidence and "approach anxiety", just that they're overpriced. Then again, if the client was getting good advice from friends, they wouldn't need bootcamps.

lazybones32 wrote: »

"prey on the loneliness of young men.." - they are offering them ways to alleviate this loneliness by interacting with women. I trust young men to be able to take what they need from it and use it accordingly. The man-whore will continue humping whatever he can and the guy who wants a gf might receive help in getting one.

I'm going to stick by my opinion here. All you seem to get from PUA's is some fashion advice, grooming tips and being pushed into approaching women. I concede that the client can get better confidence this way, it's just an extreme step to take.

lazybones32 wrote: »

"women are little more than targets and prizes rather than people worth knowing." Is this a statement of a PUA or is it your interpretation? Getting with a woman is sometimes referred to as "scoring", so you might be onto something there...but why is it, that when a man wants a casual relationship with a woman, it can be bad but when a woman wants one, it can be 'empowering'?

It's my interpretation. Of course, some guys who "game" may want a relationship but a lot of the literature treats women as "marks". I'm not saying that wanting a casual relationship is bad, so long as both parties know the score.

H3llR4iser

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

...I find it hard to believe that the average woman could have any man, or woman in some scenarios she fancies just by winking at him/her.

I had this discussion years ago with a (female) friend of mine. She had recently become single after a very long relationship and fancied one of her coworkers, who in turn didn't really pay her any attention. I simply suggested she showed him some interest, initially just randomly striking up conversation (e.g. watercooler, coffee break) and he'd start responding. She doubted me.

Fast forward three years, they recently moved in together.

The fact is really simple: An average looking woman walks up to a man and says "Hi!", he will give her some consideration. An average looking man walks up to an equally average looking woman saying "Hi!", and she'll have her decision made in the first few seconds - most of the time being "Not a chance!".

The reasons behind this are multiple and complex; There's certainly the way we're naturally wired, but societal and cultural issues come into play. Men are used to having to do all the "chasing", so being served an easy opportunity is a rare treat. Most women, on the other hand, get chased all the time; Therefore they have the possibility of choice - which however doesn't mean they can't lose or waste opportunities.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've been on 2, 3 if you count Tinder. The ratio is horribly skewed online.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fortunately, the real world is quite different but it's not much easier.

It simply reflects what I said above. As simple as it is, most women that are "looking" do not need Tinder nor any other website. Up until a few years ago, it wasn't so rare to spot fake women profiles on many dating sites - put there just to balance numbers out and induce men to register/pay.

As for the whole PUA thing, again I think it's a bit more complex that it looks on the surface. In general, men and women alike want to have sex - it's a funding block of what we are. The issue is that society has constructed a whole set of expectations and morals around it that drove the point of view of the two genders as far apart as they can possibly be.

For men, it's almost a badge of honour - a guy that is capable of having multiple sexual partners is often seen as an hero; For women, it's the exact opposite: society frowns upon those who simply follow their instincts like a man would do, while glorifying the picky approach. In this environment, most of the not-so-successful guys will definitely perceive an "advantage women" and feel the whole "game" to be rigged, unfair.

Something like the PUA phenomenon seemingly offers the silver bullet, a "one cures all" solution with their "we figured the game out!" approach and people (men) like that.

As for the fact it is a realistic approach or not, I have my doubts. I don't think it's something that can be taught.

I know a couple of guys that are extremely successful with the ladies; I'm talking about "they melt right before them" levels. One of them is admittedly handsome, the other very average, fairly average in all (classic football/cars guys, not particularly successful nor rich et cetera). As a man, it's simply infuriating to see, I'll admit it ...and the funny fact is this: if you ask them how they do, they simply have no idea at all...they go "I don't know, I just talk and stuff happens!".

PUnited

I think for some lads it isnt a deception thing at all, its that they are clueless with women and how to talk to them like normal people. these books have various lines as in not different from some normal teasing jokes and they give some lads a confident boost to approach a girl and try to chat and in turn helps them gain confidence.

lazybones32

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's been getting some attention in the media especially with that chap and the media. The Guardian's had a pop at it from time to time:

I don't want to sound like a whinge but if someone labelled women who needed help with attracting partners as "sleazebags, saddos and weirdos" I doubt it would make it past the Editor, never mind the ****storm that would inevitably ensue.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's the absurd amount they charge for these bootcamps. I'm not saying that they can't help with confidence and "approach anxiety", just that they're overpriced. Then again, if the client was getting good advice from friends, they wouldn't need bootcamps.

Well, it is an American phenomenon and I wouldn't expect it to come cheap. They are selling a 'successful' method for achieving something the buyer wants. An expensive price indicates a competent and high-quality product, so maybe that's all part of the confidence game...

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm going to stick by my opinion here. All you seem to get from PUA's is some fashion advice, grooming tips and being pushed into approaching women. I concede that the client can get better confidence this way, it's just an extreme step to take.

I disagree. I've had a few on-line interactions with American PUA's and they never appeared to be as bad as their critics* painted them. They were young(ish) men who knew what they wanted and set about getting it. I never heard one refer to Women as second-class Citizens, sex-objects or anything derogatory. The noted there are lots of pretty Women and they wanted to have sex with them.....I'm sure many men can understand that desire.

*Male and Female critics

ancapailldorcha

lazybones32 wrote: »

I don't want to sound like a whinge but if someone labelled women who needed help with attracting partners as "sleazebags, saddos and weirdos" I doubt it would make it past the Editor, never mind the ****storm that would inevitably ensue.

I agree with this. The Guardian in particular is guilty of this.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Well, it is an American phenomenon and I wouldn't expect it to come cheap. They are selling a 'successful' method for achieving something the buyer wants. An expensive price indicates a competent and high-quality product, so maybe that's all part of the confidence game...

Price is no indication of quality here, IMO. They know there are guys who are desperate and so they can charge what they please.

lazybones32 wrote: »

I disagree. I've had a few on-line interactions with American PUA's and they never appeared to be as bad as their critics* painted them. They were young(ish) men who knew what they wanted and set about getting it. I never heard one refer to Women as second-class Citizens, sex-objects or anything derogatory. The noted there are lots of pretty Women and they wanted to have sex with them.....I'm sure many men can understand that desire.

*Male and Female critics

It's more the general language used rather than specific words. That said, things are rarely as bad as the media would have you believe which brings us back to the beginning of this post. IMO, if I became a PUA I'd be pretending to be someone else, acting in a specific manner and treating women differently when I thought it would lead to a romantic engagement.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I agree with this. The Guardian in particular is guilty of this.

Well it is the Guardian. I mean they use secondhand copy from nuclear powered morons like Lindy West which says all that needs to be said really. An overweight, overwrought, professional victim millennial in search of an opinion that isn't from her ivory tower echo chamber.

Though to be fair that particular PUA "foreign National" is a thundering twat who was giving "advice" that might rightfully get a guys arse handed to him and a helluva lot of guys in the PUA world are thinking and saying the same thing.

It's more the general language used rather than specific words.

Pretty much A.

Rattle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There seems to be a growing amount of BS emanating primarily at least from the US aimed at young men, specifically those who’ve yet to experience a relationship or any sort of romantic interaction with the opposite sex. Most of this portrays women quite negatively and the PUA sites seem to be no exception. Women are strongly encouraged today in both professional and personal endeavours, which is fantastic. There doesn’t seem to be any similar message for young men leaving a void which ends up being filled by PUAs, “red pillers” and misogynists in general.

I find it disturbing that such groups prey on the loneliness of young men spreading this message that women are little more than targets and prizes rather than people worth knowing. I was offered a free workshop myself once. The idea of putting up pretence just to attain one-night stands has no appeal to me. The PUAs fill a role in an ethically questionable manner. However, there seems to be no alternate message for young men which likely explains it’s growing popularity.

I find the movement itself, and it's growing popularity both fascinating and disturbing. I think as well as filling a void it also is based around a kernel of truth that is brought too far and twisted somewhat. There is a difference in how men and women interact, and how they form relationships, that is to a certain extent denied by modern western culture. For most people this is just a natural part of their psychology but some either learn to suppress it or it just is not a strong influence on them, and having the difference spelled out can be something of a revelation. The movement looks something like a cult now though, and it does look the development is being directed rather than developing spontaneously.

lazybones32

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

... IMO, if I became a PUA I'd be pretending to be someone else, acting in a specific manner and treating women differently when I thought it would lead to a romantic engagement.

*hold hand in air* I am guilty of this in my younger years. I'm sure I'm not the only person to embellish or lie in order to appear more attractive in a woman's eyes.

Gits_bone

lazybones32 wrote: »

*hold hand in air* I am guilty of this in my younger years. I'm sure I'm not the only person to embellish or lie in order to appear more attractive in a woman's eyes.

Pretty much every guy has done this to some extent to appear more attractive.

If I gel my hair up on a night out but don't any time else is this changing who you are?

DavidRamsay99

There is nothing new about PUA which is just the latest incarnation of the art of seduction or controversy about its morality.

In the 18th century the writer Pierre-Ambroise-François Choderlos de Laclos wrote Les Liaisons Dangereuses about the fictional French aristocrat Vicomte Sebastian De Valmont, a reptilian womanizer who seduces the sweet innocent young Cécile de Volanges and the virtuous married Madame de Tourvel to win a wager.

Moral disapproval of womanizers and adultery probably dates back to the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture in ancient times.

In hunter gathering societies the chief and his men did the hunting and went to war but women controlled the camp fire and made the decisions for the tribe. The adults practiced free love and children were raised by all the adults of the tribe.

However following the establishment of agricultural economies, the farmer had to know his wife was a virgin who had known no other men so that he could be assured that any children she bore would be his so he could have an heir he could pass on his land and his herd. The system would unravel if men knew they were raising the children of strangers and their labor was for nothing. This is why rape was used as a weapon of war. Not only would soldiers on the march steal crops to feed themselves and their horses but they would defile the wives and daughters of the inhabitants and impregnate them if possible.

A seducer threatens the social order because he can have sex with women with ease while the ordinary man who must sweat for his bread will only have one woman at least.

Wibbs

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

In hunter gathering societies the chief and his men did the hunting and went to war but women controlled the camp fire and made the decisions for the tribe. The adults practiced free love and children were raised by all the adults of the tribe.

Untrue. It depends entirely on the HG culture. "Free love" is quite rare a thing. Marriage bonds are considered to be very strong in the majority of HG cultures as are lineages. Decision making also varies, but in the majority of HG societies it's far more on the male side. Rape and "bride stealing" is also common enough in some HG societies. A couple of Amazonian tribes are known for it. As far as food gathering goes, HG's are more gatherers that hunters and the lion's share of the calorie needs of the the group are sourced by women. Fire starting and control of fire is more usually a male preserve too.

Yes agriculture did seem to influence relationship moralities, but not quite to the degree and not quite in the way you suggest. If anything the growing populations of the first towns and cities increased the chances of cuckolding and playing away. Its a lot harder to have extra marital nookie in a group of 40 people living on top of each other, than in a town of 5000 where privacy is more in evidence. Plus since agriculture kicked off there have been more genetic changes in the human genome than in the previous 50,000 years. many of these were dietary adaptations, but there well also changes in sperm production too. One theory holds that this was because increasing population sizes increased mate competition so we adapted accordingly.

Tl;DR? The transition into agriculture with its increasing settled population increased sexual competition and that's more likely why gender moralities shifted to be more strict.

ancapailldorcha

lazybones32 wrote: »

*hold hand in air* I am guilty of this in my younger years. I'm sure I'm not the only person to embellish or lie in order to appear more attractive in a woman's eyes.

Well, yeah... I'd chalk that up to immaturity though. The PUA regularly heads out with the sole intention of meeting women.

Gits_bone

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, yeah... I'd chalk that up to immaturity though. The PUA regularly heads out with the sole intention of meeting women.

You'll never have men where women aren't.

H3llR4iser

Gits_bone wrote: »

You'll never have men where women aren't.

Lol there's so much truth in this...many years ago, as a student, I used to work the odd night as security (back when you needed no qualifications/courses). The big mantra dictated by any nightclub/bar owner was "never let in groups of guys" and "let a guy in each two women".

iptba

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Lol there's so much truth in this...many years ago, as a student, I used to work the odd night as security (back when you needed no qualifications/courses). The big mantra dictated by any nightclub/bar owner was "never let in groups of guys" and "let a guy in each two women".

Perhaps understandable. But frustrating. There'd be uproar if was the approach for other groups.

H3llR4iser

iptba wrote: »

Perhaps understandable. But frustrating. There'd be uproar if was the approach for other groups.

It is (was maybe, I'm talking about 1990s - early 2000s) quite the norm in Italy. The excuse behind it is that "women don't pick up fights or cause problems", which is bullcr@ap - every time there was a fight, scuffle or whatnot, it was either started by a woman and then her male pals got involved, or about a woman.

The reality was that they wanted women in the place to attract men, increasing the volume of the business. To this day (last August) I have been to places where the women get in for free, while men pay 10-15 euro. It is dictated by a cultural peculiarity of the country - if they didn't employ these kind of strategies, the club/bar would become an absolute sausage fest (and empty the next week, as the word "there are no women there!" spreads)

ancapailldorcha

iptba wrote: »

Perhaps understandable. But frustrating. There'd be uproar if was the approach for other groups.

Makes sense in a way. A lot of people go to nightclubs to meet people of the opposite sex. Letting in more women makes the place more appealing to men. I'm assuming that nightclubs are more popular with guys hence the "gender quotas" some of them have.

the evasion_kid

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Makes sense in a way. A lot of people go to nightclubs to meet people of the opposite sex. Letting in more women makes the place more appealing to men. I'm assuming that nightclubs are more popular with guys hence the "gender quotas" some of them have.

This fella makes some very interesting points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOO8Fl-XrDg

ancapailldorcha

I'll watch it later. I'm already on a thin line regarding Boards and work.

Seriously?

the evasion_kid wrote: »

This fella makes some very interesting points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOO8Fl-XrDg

Seen a number of his videos, he hits a good number points correctly in my opinion.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

the evasion_kid

Seriously? wrote: »

Seen a number of his videos, he hits a good number points correctly in my opinion.

I've read his book "enjoy the decline" although written from an american perspective,there's a lot to be learned from it,he has another book called "bachelor pad economics" that's supposed to be well worth a read.

tritium

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

As somebody who has 'studied' PUA in the past, and I use that term lightly, there is SOOOO much more to it than lines, in fact, the general consensus between the top PUAs is whats called Inner Game, being comfortable in yourself, having goals, confidence, understanding what attraction is and how to create it between yourself and a female is what its all about. Its not about banging x amount of girls or getting girls that are on a x/10 scale even though it is described more often than not as working this way.

You could have the best looking lad in the world, but if hes in no way confident an attractive woman that could potentially be interested in him will never go near him. Its up to the man to show his values and his ambitions in order to gain that confidence. How does he do this? he learns to express himself in ways he never knew how, he learns different social interactions, he takes care of himself health wise and he improves his character and most importantly he feels he is living life to the best of his ability and has dreams of progressing even further. This is the main message of PUA. The reason why it is so socially unacceptable to be associated with it is the way it is marketed and down to the way the general society sees it. The way its sold is totally wrong and I couldn't disagree with it any more. Underneath it all there are a fine set of principles that some men have developed naturally over the course of their lives, others need to be taught or learn the,. So be it

Interesting. Its not an area I've more than a passing curiosity about but quite a bit of the PUA stuff I've seen seems to be a mix of develop confidence/ self improvement - albeit often packaged up in an Americanised BS sales pitch that comes across as rather sleazy. I do wonder sometimes if some of the negativity towards it is driven as much by a negative view of empowering young men as by any concern about the more negative side of it.

Adamantium

I think Red Pill, RSD, PUA etc, rtc and male centered self improvement has been on of the best things in recent years for young men. Lord knows it was well overdue like a Yellowstone eruption gate decades upon decades of bat-**** illogical feminism. If it were about equality for all, why would it be called feminism at this point?

It also marks a conservative/libertarian pushback against western (read American culture ) that seems to have leaked off the internet and has finally begun to surface in that actual people aren't afraid to talk about men's issues or ruffle a few feathers.

Also in Ireland and Europe is only a shadow of what USA culture is like and thank god for that, I hate to see countries adopting the worst parts of the USA just because it's the USA.

It wouldn't surprise if this Bill Burr reads this stuff and he clocks it in a mainstream accessible way. Look how awkward it gets halfway through, cos they know

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWhZ2XS08aQ

Adamantium

the evasion_kid wrote: »

This fella makes some very interesting points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOO8Fl-XrDg

I can't believe another Irish guy watches him as well.

Bachelor Pad Economics is one of the best book non fiction books I have ever read, completely strips you of any B.S view of the world. Very subversive and under the skin, chilling in fact.

KomradeBishop

Adamantium wrote: »

I can't believe another Irish guy watches him as well.

Bachelor Pad Economics is one of the best book non fiction books I have ever read, completely strips you of any B.S view of the world. Very subversive and under the skin, chilling in fact.

Some quotes collected from that guys book, on Amazon reviews:

"Women are absolutely horrible at managing finances." (Page 392)

"Sadly, the chances of being falsely accused [of rape] are increasing as the definition of rape becomes more liberal and modern women more narcissistic" (Page 246 -- this comes literally two paragraphs after the section about how getting women drunk is a great way to get laid)

"The problem is society has lied to men and women about reality ... they've convinced women that 'big is beautiful' and 'men value educated women.'" (Page 231)

"Most girls major in stupid s***." (Page 384)

"Unfortunately, most women do not place as much value on sex as men do, and thusly let themselves go after marriage. Furthermore, with all the female-centric brainwashing they've received over the decades, they actually believe that you should only like them for their personality and 'inner beauty."

"No matter what they say, no matter what Oprah tells you, no matter what legions of single moms and psychologists tell you, women don't want to lead or be leaders, women want, nay crave, to be led."

"Women are absolutely horrible at managing their personal finances."

"is nothing more than an affirmative action program designed to get more women employed in the corporate world without putting them in genuine positions of power. They can't do accounting. They can't do math. They can't do computer programming, but they can ask you some mean questions about where you see yourself in three years..."

"Women like tall, strong, aloof, confident a******s who ignore them and treat them like s***."
...
"Where women are weak, men are strong. Where men suck at doing things, women excel. And where men like to play with boobies, women like having their boobies played with."

veganrun

I got interested in this whole thing after reading The Game. While its obvious from that book about the negatives that can come from the whole thing, I think it does have its good points. I definitely was a bit clueless about meeting women and while it hasn't massively changed me, I definitely picked up some positive traits from it, specifically around being myself, not automatically/always agreeing with what the woman says, being a bit cheeky/flirty, not being afraid to walk away etc. I probably was guilty of being a bit of a doormat if I'm honest but I didn't recognise any of this until I read about PUA and like a lot of simple things you often wonder how you didn't realise it sooner.

Personally I'm not interested in having one night stands even though on the face of it, they seem appealing. If this stuff helps bring someone out of their shell and meet a woman to date/have a relationship with and as long as they both treat each other with respect and honesty, I don't see a problem.

the evasion_kid

Adamantium wrote: »

I can't believe another Irish guy watches him as well.

Bachelor Pad Economics is one of the best book non fiction books I have ever read, completely strips you of any B.S view of the world. Very subversive and under the skin, chilling in fact.

He blogs around the manosphere under the handle captain capitalism,its only lately I got around to reading one of his books.

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ie/2012/05/manosphere.html

You'll notice there's a link to bill burrs site

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Some quotes collected from that guys book, on Amazon reviews:

Are those for real? I've not watched the video but if so, this guy must me some sort of moron.

Wibbs

Adamantium wrote: »

Also in Ireland and Europe is only a shadow of what USA culture is like and thank god for that, I hate to see countries adopting the worst parts of the USA just because it's the USA.

This in a big way. This is more and more missed by a lot of men(and women) when discussing this gender subject. Take the usual "50% of marriages end in divorce". That's a US stat(and even then it's more complex than that). The Irish divorce rate is significantly lower. Not even in the same ballpark. So it's a nonsense to bring it up when discussing the average Irish persons life.

It's not even US culture overall. It's a subculture of the wider one. It's more a reflection of east coast west coast urban experience. It's also a media thing coming from media type schooled in US universities. They're another subculture. The batshít loony "feminism" and all that social justice stuff has the ivory tower US college as it's driver. The world is a different place outside same. EG all this ohmigod about US college rapes. The stats clearly show that women are at more risk outside the faculty gates, yet which gets the airtime?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Some quotes collected from that guys book, on Amazon reviews:

"Women are absolutely horrible at managing finances." (Page 392)

Yep an utter nonsense. Look at how many bookkeepers and accountants are women. There are also a fair few women who work in the financial sector. I dunno what women he knows but it seems he's selecting for the ditzy profligates. TBH that claim is barely worthy of a response.

"Sadly, the chances of being falsely accused [of rape] are increasing as the definition of rape becomes more liberal and modern women more narcissistic"

I'd somewhat agree here. But yet again it's US based and even there it's highly dependent on the social environment. The US college campuses I mentioned before. Where faculties can act as judge and jury kowtowing to some of the more nonsensical so called feminist newthink. Outside that environment it's a different matter.

"The problem is society has lied to men and women about reality ... they've convinced women that 'big is beautiful' and 'men value educated women.'" (Page 231)

I don't even know where to start with the latter claim. Dumb as fook that one. Hey maybe he likes them dumb as fook so again it's self selecting. The former I'd somewhat agree with, but I'd be coming from another angle. Media and advertising has been sending mixed messages towards women for generations. "big is beautiful" is nada to do with men and it's not aimed at them. In the majority of cases that stuff is companies trying to sell women more crap they can feel bad about.

And the claim that Men(tm) don't like "fat chicks"? Funny then that BBW porn is a category all of its own and a popular one too. God forbid we may all have differing tastes.

"Most girls major in stupid s***

Again a nonsense and just playing to the usual red pill crowds expectations. In the US the top subject is business studies for both men and women. Yes women do make up more of a majority in the arts/social studies subjects and men make up the majority of fields like engineering and IT, but his definition of "most" seems to be a loose one not based on the facts.

In Ireland more women are going on to third level than men. A larger percentage are going into the science end than US women. Fields like medicine are more and more dominated by women. Hey maybe he thinks medicine is "stupid shít?".

I've watched and read some of his stuff before. He makes a few good points but it's buried in so much waffle and nonsense and a narrow subsection of US cultural experience that the effort to dig is hardly worth it for me. And by god I know waffle and nonsense pretty well...

H3llR4iser

I'd mostly agree with Wibbs, the guy is kinda "black and white", if I get the concept across. I didn't read any of his books, I just listened at some of his vlogs (while doing other stuff, in truth).

He has some valid points; The clip posted about the whole "nightclub" malarkey is almost entirely spot on. Even when the concept that many women dress up in a certain way or send out certain signals just to get attention, when in reality they aren't really looking to meet someone. It's a concept I wish more men would understand - it'd help us all look a bit less like fools.

He has similar valid points when he goes on about stuff like "having to invest" (e.g. pension funds, houses et simila) which ironically seem catered as much towards the Irish as they are towards Americans.

Other times he goes on completely silly; There's one clip about "getting rid of stuff" that while clever in principle, ends up essentially saying "you should just live like a caveman with no interest in life other than f*cking women" (he essentially goes on like: rent the smallest place you can live in, get rid of hobbies/interests/likings that involve owning stuff, get rid of physical books and so on).

Still entertaining, 'though

Mike747

Adamantium wrote: »

I think Red Pill, RSD, PUA etc, rtc and male centered self improvement has been on of the best things in recent years for young men. Lord knows it was well overdue like a Yellowstone eruption gate decades upon decades of bat-**** illogical feminism. If it were about equality for all, why would it be called feminism at this point?

It also marks a conservative/libertarian pushback against western (read American culture ) that seems to have leaked off the internet and has finally begun to surface in that actual people aren't afraid to talk about men's issues or ruffle a few feathers.

Also in Ireland and Europe is only a shadow of what USA culture is like and thank god for that, I hate to see countries adopting the worst parts of the USA just because it's the USA.

It wouldn't surprise if this Bill Burr reads this stuff and he clocks it in a mainstream accessible way. Look how awkward it gets halfway through, cos they know

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWhZ2XS08aQ

The Red Pill movement is one of the best things thats happened for men in a long time. Required reading for all men but especially younger men. Thanks to divorce there's a whole generation of boys growing up with little or no contact with their fathers. In general masculinity has been demonized. There are few if any traditional male role models left.

The best thing is the sheer contempt for the liberal feminist narrative. When you've been brainwashed by the hyper-pc mainstream media, reading red pill websites is a very liberating experience.

lazybones32

There are statements the author makes that I agree with and ones I disagree with.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

"Sadly, the chances of being falsely accused [of rape] are increasing as the definition of rape becomes more liberal and modern women more narcissistic"

- The Washington Post/Sun ran an article a few years ago about statistics obtained from Maryland or Baltimore Police which found that one-third of rape allegations were false accusations and were used as a means of revenge.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-city-rapes-gallery-storygallery.html this isn't the source I first read it on but it is reputable and proves I'm not making things up.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

"The problem is society has lied to men and women about reality ... they've convinced women that 'big is beautiful' and 'men value educated women.

'Society' lies to us in equal measure - wear these jeans and people will look twice; driving a certain car conveys the image that you're sleek, powerful and graceful; own a house and you'll be happy, etc...we're are all like donkeys chasing one carrot or another but since Society is made up of people, and we are People, why view/blame Society as being a third-person with its own consciousness?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

"No matter what they say, no matter what Oprah tells you, no matter what legions of single moms and psychologists tell you, women don't want to lead or be leaders, women want, nay crave, to be led."

I agree very much so with this! There are obviously headstrong women and women who want to be dominant in the relationship but I'd wager money that the vast majority of women want a strong, decisive, confident man who has a plan for his life and is going about achieving it...a 'take control' sort of guy. Why is power an aphrodisiac for many women?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

"is nothing more than an affirmative action program designed to get more women employed in the corporate world without putting them in genuine positions of power. They can't do accounting. They can't do math. They can't do computer programming, but they can ask you some mean questions about where you see yourself in three years..."

The A.A question is quite contentious in the USA and statistics did show females scoring lower in math and lower interest in STEM subjects/courses. How the author pads his speech and the choice of words may leave much to be desired but there can be no arguing with the numbers. Or is your objection based around the emotive language used?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

"Women like tall, strong, aloof, confident a******s who ignore them and treat them like s***."

Like it or not, it seems to be true. How many cocky, extrovert, ar$eholes do you know who is single by choice? Women seem to feed off their energy or something but it is definitely a blind-spot.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

"Where women are weak, men are strong. Where men suck at doing things, women excel. And where men like to play with boobies, women like having their boobies played with."

That's complementary in my eyes. To say men and women are exactly the same in general strengths/weakness is to blind yourself to the obvious. I know, I know, it's politically incorrect and misogynistic if I say there is something that men generally do better than women (but it's empowering/liberating to say women can do things better than men?)
Men are mostly right-brained and women left-brained...or vice-versa.
And a foot-rub kindles a longer-burning fire than rubbing her chest

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are those for real? I've not watched the video but if so, this guy must me some sort of moron.

As far as I know, ya - if the Amazon reviews are truthful (I could 'find' a copy of the ebook and verify them, at a push, if someone claims they're false).