Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How is a man supposed to find a woman in the 21st century
Options
Comments
-
-
Doctor Jimbob wrote: »Having a pre-prepared conversation opener is fecking odd behaviour.
Mine is "So, I was just thinking...about your boobs", slight pause followed by large smile and finger guns.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »Hmm, you seem to know exactly what I mean by "work"
Nah - I opened my post intentionally pointing out that I am not sure what you mean
But sure if you wanna go out and get laid - as I said it will "work" in the sense that it is likely nothing more than a psychological placebo that gets you distracted while it does nothing more than make you do some very obvious things.
But if PUA gets you laid more it will likely be for that reason. It is not likely to "work" in the sense of getting you laid more for any of the reasons _it_ is claiming you will get laid more. Just like a weird Turmeric diet which helps you lose weight - is not likely to be getting you to lose weight for any of the reasons _it_ says - specifically using turmeric! The claims about turmeric - just like the claims about PUA - are incidental entirely it seems to me.
Thats what I mean when I say "it depends what you mean by work". It will "work" in that it might get you laid more - but not "work" in the sense that any of the getting you laid more has anything to do with anything specific to PUA in and of itself.
If I create a new Pick Up movement tomorrow that says "If you want to get laid more then eat a banana - then get your best mate to shoot you in the forehead 20 times with a big NERF gun - then go hit on 20 women" it will work. And it's working will have _nothing_ to do with the banana or the NERF gun. Rather it will "work" for the same reason PUA might work. Which is that I just got that person to go and talk to 20 women they otherwise might not have.Deleted User wrote: »Also it's weird that people so dislike the PUA stuff while also claiming it's all basic common sense.
Not what I claimed anyway. Read it again. What I said is that weird fad diets and things like PUA are themselves just packaging _around_ already existing common sense that has nothing to do with that fad diet or the PUA. In other words what I said was the exact opposite of saying PUA is basic common sense. No I said PUA is nonsense packaging used to distract you from the fact all they are actually doing is re-selling you the same common sense.0 -
-
So it will do what it says but that doesn't mean it "worked"? Interesting knot-tying there.Deleted User wrote: »Nah - I opened my post intentionally pointing out that I am not sure what you mean
But sure if you wanna go out and get laid - as I said it will "work" in the sense that it is likely nothing more than a psychological placebo that gets you distracted while it does nothing more than make you do some very obvious things.
But if PUA gets you laid more it will likely be for that reason. It is not likely to "work" in the sense of getting you laid more for any of the reasons _it_ is claiming you will get laid more. Just like a weird Turmeric diet which helps you lose weight - is not likely to be getting you to lose weight for any of the reasons _it_ says - specifically using turmeric! The claims about turmeric - just like the claims about PUA - are incidental entirely it seems to me.
Thats what I mean when I say "it depends what you mean by work". It will "work" in that it might get you laid more - but not "work" in the sense that any of the getting you laid more has anything to do with anything specific to PUA in and of itself.
If I create a new Pick Up movement tomorrow that says "If you want to get laid more then eat a banana - then get your best mate to shoot you in the forehead 20 times with a big NERF gun - then go hit on 20 women" it will work. And it's working will have _nothing_ to do with the banana or the NERF gun. Rather it will "work" for the same reason PUA might work. Which is that I just got that person to go and talk to 20 women they otherwise might not have.
So talk to more women is common sense. The negging etc. is all just packaging that has no relevance?Not what I claimed anyway. Read it again. What I said is that weird fad diets and things like PUA are themselves just packaging _around_ already existing common sense that has nothing to do with that fad diet or the PUA. In other words what I said was the exact opposite of saying PUA is basic common sense. No I said PUA is nonsense packaging used to distract you from the fact all they are actually doing is re-selling you the same common sense.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »Well in my experience you're completely wrong. A couple of mates always dressed well, fancy smelly stuff etc. and got nowhere for years. Started being arseholes and they pulled more often than not.
Alas since this is anecdote that I can not verify as true in any way - we are at the "I will take your word for it" kind of impasse which actually means I am not taking your word for it
For me there seems to be nothing in the material of PUA that is evidenced in any way other than anecdote I hear and can never verify. However my own anecdotal experience is the only reason acting like a dick improved their chances is that what they were doing _before_ there was simply significantly worse or creepier.
_If_ there is more to it than that it is hard to imagine what. Except possibly the power of placebo. If you feel empowered by a set of "skills" or "moves" you believe will get you laid that can have a placebo effect on your confidence and the like. Which sure - will help. I am happy to concede that for sure.
Some time ago I worked on a guys "game" and I did it reluctantly. And the whole time I was working on him I was very conscious of not crossing a line into stuff like "PUA". I defined the line and never crossed it I think.
However we went from him getting _zero_ interest from _anyone_ at speed dating before I worked on him - to actually getting significantly over 50% of the women at the speed dating expressing an interest and sharing contact details.
So I do genuinely believe there are things that can be improved - that work for genuine reasons - without any of this absolute bullock tripe about getting into the "Right transactional mode of conversation and avoid being a buyer or a seller" and all that absolute anus-biscuits.
Which alas - I realise - is another anecdote which you in turn can not verify But such is the state of play. 0 -
-
-
-
Deebles McBeebles wrote: »I really hope its the same guy with all these PUA accounts.
You gotta love how in the post where I wrote " Sorry mods/admins!" I predicted not only that the re-reg was about to come back but was about to specifically reply to me
I can well see how predicting the blatantly obvious a few times could leave people with a messiah complex or the illusion of being a fortune teller though.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
OK. Just so we're clear:
My opinion is most women want to have children, and most women have children.ancapailldorcha wrote: »Have you any stats?
Would have thought it was pretty much common knowledge that most women want and have children, but in any case, here's some stats:The proportion of women aged 40-44 or around that are childless varies considerably across OECD countries (Table SF2.5.A). In some OECD countries, including Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom, 20% or more of women aged 40-44 or around are childless. In others, by contrast, rates are lower than 10%.
Rates of childless at or around age 40-44 are particularly low in the South or Central American OECD countries – with the rate in Chile in 2002 only 7.72% and in Mexico in 2010 only 8.55% – and particularly also in Turkey, where as late as 2008 only 4.5% of women aged 40-44 were childless.
Rates of childless at age 40-44 or around are increasing in most of those OECD countries where data are available for both time points (Table SF2.5.A). In many cases the size of changes are not directly comparable across countries because of differences in the years of reference and in some cases also definitions. Nontheless, in Finland for example, the proportion of 40-44 women that are childless increased by over 5 percentage points between 1990 and 2010, while in the United Kingdom rates of childlessness for women aged 45 increased by 6 percentage points between 1995 and 2010.
Only four OECD countries (Chile, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Turkey) with available data see the rate of childlessness fall between their two time points, with the decrease in Luxembourg (from 19% in 1991 to 15% in 2001) particularly large.
0 -
-
-
-
Deebles McBeebles wrote: »Only way to be sure is to post a pic and start a poll
That definitely won't give you any self esteem issues.
not a hope! 0 -
Deebles McBeebles wrote: »Only way to be sure is to post a pic and start a poll
That definitely won't give you any self esteem issues.
What are the actual rules of posting pictures of yourself or your partner on this forum? I never see anyone do it so I assumed it was banned? In fact I seem to remember a whole thread for it called "Know your boardsies" which I now can not even find any more? Was it deleted?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement