The Ethics of PUA

liah · 08-06-2011 02:55PM #1

PUA being, of course, Pick Up Artistry, e.g. The Game.

As a potential target of PUA, it unnerves me. Quite a lot, actually. When reading material and terms such as "HB10" (meaning, a "hot body"/girl who's a 10), "target," "k/f/#-close" (kiss/fuck/number "close," i.e. how they ended the encounter), "alpha," "beta," "negging" (insulting a girl to "validate" her), "canned openers," "prize," etc. it strikes me as relentlessly manipulative. It's like turning meeting women into a hunt, or a military strategy. To me, it seems dehumanizing, predatory, selfish, arrogant, and very, very creepy. I would absolutely hate to find out I had been the prey of a player, and frankly it's putting me off dating completely because I just don't want to take the risk.

A lot of men will claim that it teaches otherwise shy/socially inept guys how to socialize by giving them an easy, step-by-step guide to becoming confident and learning how to approach women. Personally, my view is that this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Teaching men to view women as "targets," teaching them how to deliver canned lines and how to say/do something to receive x result, teaching them to manipulate women into bed - none of these seem positive to me, and in fact can be potentially incredibly destructive to everyone the player of the game comes in contact with. It's effectively teaching these poor guys to lie about themselves and to lie to other people for momentary gratification. It's effectively teaching them that women are all the same - dumb and easy to manipulate to get sex, and that their only real purpose is sex. It seems incredibly unhealthy, as anything built on lies and dehumanization tends to be.

But enough about what I think - what are your views on the ethics of Pick Up Artistry? Do you think it's predatory, dehumanizing and manipulative, or do you think it's doing a good deed in helping shy guys build much-needed confidence?

Sleepy · 08-06-2011 03:18PM

I've read 'The Game' and found it quite funny tbh.

Most of what these guys call Game is what the rest of us do naturally when we're attracted to somebody only far more formulaic. It's certainly a little sleazy / desperate as most of it is effectively the "scattergun approach" to finding a sexual partner: hit on everything that moves until you find someone that's not repulsed by you.

They do tend to objectify women quite a bit in their jargon but no more so than you'd hear in a typical male locker room imho.

Have you read the book yourself? Strauss walks away from the "community" in the end, for some of the reasons you state but also because his life had become as vacuous as the women the PUA stuff worked on.

Morag · 08-06-2011 03:19PM

Lack of ethics I think is more of the point.
There is a difference between a system which offers to build up a person's confidence
and one which teaches a person to tear down someone else's.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 08-06-2011 04:27PM

Does it actually work? I don't know much about it but always thought it would be like a placebo/trick. Basically a guy thinks he can get women because of this technique so hes more confident getting women. Women like confidence.

He puts it down to the technique but it was simply that he was more confident

Though yeah its a bit creepy the terminology alright - id you read the book liah or is it online somewhere?

liah · 08-06-2011 04:38PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Does it actually work? I don't know much about it but always thought it would be like a placebo/trick. Basically a guy thinks he can get women because of this technique so hes more confident getting women. Women like confidence.

"Work" in what sense, as in work on women? Yes, it's massive in America and a lot of other places. But it seems to particularly work on American women and/or be designed to work on American women.

Reading a lot of it, I have no idea how it actually works on the girls as a lot of it just seems insanely transparent. I mean, I understand how it's meant to work in theory, but the girls have to be spectacularly dumb to fall for a lot of the canned stuff, and completely ignorant of PUA for a lot of the rest of it (and everyone's seen How I Met Your Mother/Barney..).

If you meant men, then again, I'm not sure. A lot of them claim to have learned how to be confident and feel it's given them positive results (I'm dubious, as I think it's very superficially positive). There's an IAmA interview with a well-known PUA up on reddit at the moment (an interview where you can ask questions with people you wouldn't normally encounter) which is pretty interesting.

I asked him this, take from it what you will. Whole thread here.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Though yeah its a bit creepy the terminology alright - id you read the book liah or is it online somewhere?

Haven't read the book, no, but I follow the r/seduction community on reddit out of a sort of morbid curiosity/preventative measure, so I know how a fair amount of people use it.

Sleepy · 08-06-2011 04:43PM

I met a couple of twins from New York when I was in Budapest who I saw succeed with the techniques they'd printed off from a website. They were handsome lads who'd probably have done okay without "game" in the first place but I think it gave them confidence (bordering on arrogance tbh) and some ice-breakers to use to get them chatting with girls in the first place.

Watching them use it, however, some of the techniques, namely the "negging" or giving backhanded compliments, did actual seem to work (granted, the girls they were talking to were quite innocent college students in their late teens / early twenties who were on an exchange program - the same girls most Irish lads do very well with by just "having the banter")

RedXIV · 08-06-2011 04:46PM

I read it, took alot of good things from it. I've alot of posts about it on these boards already. I hasten to point out that if you read "The Game" you'd see at the end the author chooses to leave the lifestyle having "found his way" so to speak.

I do think there is alot of good in the book mixed with the bad. There are self confidence exercises, social etiquette, and some fundamental truths which while unpopular, are surprisingly accurate.

Of course this is excessively sprinkled with alot of crap as well but if I knew someone who wanted to become more confident around women, I would point them in the Game's direction but just tell them to take it with a pinch of salt/common sense.

Sleepy · 08-06-2011 04:54PM

liah wrote: »

"Work" in what sense, as in work on women? Yes, it's massive in America and a lot of other places. But it seems to particularly work on American women and/or be designed to work on American women.

Reading a lot of it, I have no idea how it actually works on the girls as a lot of it just seems insanely transparent. I mean, I understand how it's meant to work in theory, but the girls have to be spectacularly dumb to fall for a lot of the canned stuff, and completely ignorant of PUA for a lot of the rest of it (and everyone's seen How I Met Your Mother/Barney..).

Then again, NLP sounds very transparent when you read some of the techniques etc. but when you watch someone like Derren Brown use them on members of the public of both sexes as part of his stage show they do seem to be incredibly powerful.

liah · 08-06-2011 04:55PM

RedXIV wrote: »

I read it, took alot of good things from it. I've alot of posts about it on these boards already. I hasten to point out that if you read "The Game" you'd see at the end the author chooses to leave the lifestyle having "found his way" so to speak.

Lots of people seem to trot that out, when in reality afaik Strauss has been divorced since and gone back into the Game, and the majority of people who read the book do so because they want to learn how to pick up women. There's a reason everyone's heard about the bad parts of the Game instead of the good ones - because lots of people take advantage of it and use it to get their end and ignore the ethics that may or may not be there in the end (as I said, I haven't read it).

I do think there is alot of good in the book mixed with the bad. There are self confidence exercises, social etiquette, and some fundamental truths which while unpopular, are surprisingly accurate.

Oh undoubtedly, but I don't want this thread to be about just the book, hence why I used it as an example rather than a topic-focus.

I would be very curious as to what fundamental truths you are referring to?

Of course this is excessively sprinkled with alot of crap as well but if I knew someone who wanted to become more confident around women, I would point them in the Game's direction but just tell them to take it with a pinch of salt/common sense.

Personally I'd rather help my friend build confidence without also teaching him to devalue and manipulate others, but I suppose everyone's different.

RedXIV · 08-06-2011 05:14PM

liah wrote: »

Lots of people seem to trot that out, when in reality afaik Strauss has been divorced since and gone back into the Game, and the majority of people who read the book do so because they want to learn how to pick up women. There's a reason everyone's heard about the bad parts of the Game instead of the good ones - because lots of people take advantage of it and use it to get their end and ignore the ethics that may or may not be there in the end (as I said, I haven't read it).

Actually I'd argue that the reason everyone is hearing the bad about the book is the apparent outrage that women are presenting to the world. Strauss has indeed gone back into the pick up community, he's extremely popular there because he doesn't go to the extreme lengths some of the others go to and does seem intent on finding a relationship.

And for someone who hasn't read the material, you've a very insistent attitude about its pretexts

I'll use the same metaphor I used before. It's easier if you think of the PUA ideals as a tool. A tool by itself can do nothing. A tool in a good person's hands can do good things, likewise a tool in a bad person's hands can do bad things. The problem I have with the general moral outrage women bring about is the conviction women have that this stuff turns good people into bad, which it doesn't. It'll make good people better, and bad people worse probably but if your shy next door neighbour reads this and turns into the kind of PUA you detest, I'd bet he was never going to be an utter gentleman anyway

liah wrote: »

Oh undoubtedly, but I don't want this thread to be about just the book, hence why I used it as an example rather than a topic-focus.

I would be very curious as to what fundamental truths you are referring to?

The fundamental truths that a lot of young men fall for that teenage years generally reinforce. The fact that women are not the elusive creatures that some men make them out to be. Alot of men are simply terrified of talking to women, who they see as aloof individuals who wouldn't waste time talking to them. The truth is that most women are just as insecure as we men

liah wrote: »

Personally I'd rather help my friend build confidence without also teaching him to devalue and manipulate others, but I suppose everyone's different.

Here is where it's evident you didn't read the book

Most of the self confidence stuff has nothing to do with anyone else. After all, self confidence at the expense of others would be a temporary thing whereas self confidence through yourself is longer lasting.

PUA gets a bad rep, mostly though the formulaic actions of some of the PUA fanboys, but the same self help stuff that people are seeing in completely unrelated self help books is whats usually presented.

leggo · 08-06-2011 05:23PM

I read it after I gave up booze and realised I'd never chatted up a girl while sober. Since I had been grand enough with women beforehand, I picked up a lot of it easily and quickly went on to teach some of it myself to BOTH men and women (never for cash...I always felt uneasy charging for people's insecurities). During that I met and interviewed Neil Strauss and had my work credited by him. We still keep in occasional touch. So I feel quite an authority on the subject.

The difference people need to understand is between the ideologies and practise of it. I am uneasy, myself, with several of the tactics and marketing that goes into it. Which is why I've never dubbed myself a PUA and actively distanced myself from the 'community' aspect of it.

Take NLP for example. Now this is a fine, reputed skill that has proven success. But you can either use it ala Derren Brown, Keith Barry etc (for entertainment purposes) or to con people out of thousands of euro by claiming to be a psychic.

In other words, there's a difference between the material itself and how it can be used.

Much of the PUA material is bang-on. It's psychologically sound and works time and again. Many of the problems with it are born out of misconceptions on people's parts (e.g. The OP's misunderstanding of negging), being threatened by it (lads who don't like the idea that other lads may know something they don't or women who don't want to feel 'tricked') or the ethically questionable marketing of some so-called 'gurus'.

In reality, the core of it is confidence building. I have watched lives change through this, simple as. Attracting the opposite sex is but a cherry on top to provoke men AND women into breaking boundaries they once thought unbreakable.

Look at the routines, for instance. People argue that they may be creepy or weird...but if you've ever told anyone a joke that wasn't 100% original you've used a 'routine'. The idea behind them is to show men that attracting women is possible by changing the script of what they say and how they say it. These will be people who are convinced they deserve to die alone. Once they use someone else's words and make progress a whole new world opens. I'll teach a routine or two, but as soon as they're ready move them onto speaking naturally. Routines are simple stabilisers before they ride the bike for real (if you'll excuse the pun).

I'm not trying to sell or convince anyone here...just put an informed, alternative viewpoint across for those who may build misconceptions based on the half-truths and misinformation of some. I share a lot of your grievances. But understand there is a difference between knowledge and how you go about using that knowledge.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 05:29PM

I don't see what's unethical about it surely it's just teaching men skills that other men have naturally? I haven't read them but maybe you're just annoyed that they work?

They sound manipulative because they are but then so is natural socializing. Isn't putting an effort to smile more to keep everyone at ease manipulative?

What comes naturally to some has to be done consciously for others I don't see whats unethical about it.

Personally, my view is that this is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

Well if their aim is to get sex and they get then I don't see how it's the wrong way to go about it.

Teaching men to view women as "targets," teaching them how to deliver canned lines and how to say/do something to receive x result, teaching them to manipulate women into bed - none of these seem positive to me, and in fact can be potentially incredibly destructive to everyone the player of the game comes in contact with.

How is it destructive to the women? They want to sleep with him. Yes they have been manipulated but anyone who is well liked is that way because they manipulate people into liking them. It's just not a conscious effort. Being likable isn't natural for a lot of people so they have to learn it. It's no less manipulative than making people laugh so they like you or learning how to make people laugh.

It's effectively teaching these poor guys to lie about themselves and to lie to other people for momentary gratification. It's effectively teaching them that women are all the same - dumb and easy to manipulate to get sex, and that their only real purpose is sex. It seems incredibly unhealthy, as anything built on lies and dehumanization tends to be.

Basically everyone lies about themselves in order to pick up the opposite sex. Everyone acts differently when they are trying to impress people, they cover their flaws and exaggerate their good points. It's self defeating not to do this in fact I'd go as far to say it would show social ineptitude to not do this.

What I do agree with you is that it dehumanizes women but that's also probably why it works. I don't think it's a good way to start a relationship but that's probably not what they're looking for. If it helps them get sex until they're naturally comfortable around women to form meaningful relationships then I don't see the harm.

liah · 08-06-2011 05:32PM

RedXIV wrote: »

And for someone who hasn't read the material, you've a very insistent attitude about its pretexts

You'll notice that this thread isn't about the book, it's about PUA in general, and the book was literally only an example (indicated by my use of e.g.) and NOT what the focus of the discussion should be; merely something that most people have heard of that lays out these 'rules.' That's literally it. I prefer to follow communities with people who actually use this stuff, like r/seduction, to get my opinions, rather than just be won over by some happy little "but he decided it was all vapid in the end" ending in only one source of material for a very large concept.

The fundamental truths that a lot of young men fall for that teenage years generally reinforce. The fact that women are not the elusive creatures that some men make them out to be. Alot of men are simply terrified of talking to women, who they see as aloof individuals who wouldn't waste time talking to them. The truth is that most women are just as insecure as we men

Does it not strike you as counterproductive that the community itself reinforces using terms like "HB," "target," "close," etc that clearly objectify their 'prey'? I have no problems with men realizing we shouldn't be on pedestals, in fact I very much like the idea that they're copping on, but I do have problems with replacing that worshipping/fear with arrogance/lack of consideration for the other person.

Here is where it's evident you didn't read the book Most of the self confidence stuff has nothing to do with anyone else. After all, self confidence at the expense of others would be a temporary thing whereas self confidence through yourself is longer lasting.

Again, I am not talking about the book. I am talking about the PUA community in general. Me having or not having read the book has no relevance - it was only an example so people would understand the type of thing I'm talking about. It is not my source of material and it is not where I have formed my opinions, I've formed them mostly around the r/seduction community and everything I feel towards PUA is because of the people who use it and talk about it, not from high-profile authors or books.

PUA gets a bad rep, mostly though the formulaic actions of some of the PUA fanboys, but the same self help stuff that people are seeing in completely unrelated self help books is whats usually presented.

I have as much a problem with a lot of self-help crap as I do with PUA tbh, but that's another topic for another day.

Wolfe Tone · 08-06-2011 05:35PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Does it actually work? I don't know much about it but always thought it would be like a placebo/trick. Basically a guy thinks he can get women because of this technique so hes more confident getting women. Women like confidence.

He puts it down to the technique but it was simply that he was more confident

Though yeah its a bit creepy the terminology alright - id you read the book liah or is it online somewhere?

Wouldn't be into it myself, but I know a lad who is into it a bit and got me to read the book, it's a good read. <SNIP>

Its great for the people who just don't approach women and don't know how to. It basically gives men a checklist of how to approach and talk to women, do this this this and this and you are sorted. More helpful than the "be yourself" crap that shy men or those who are unsuccessful with women are told.

Some of the lesser things are pretty practical and I took a few things away from it. A lot of it is way out there but a lot is very useful. Some of it is basic psychology which when its pointed out makes sense.

It can boost peoples confidence for sure and has its uses. We all know guys who are just naturally great with women. It takes what they do unconsciously and reduces it to a formula which they say anyone can follow.

The reason why women are so against it/scared is because it works.

Is it ethical? Yeah why not? They have the same motivations as other men, the people who use these consciously just haven't adopted the methods naturally.

Wolfe Tone · 08-06-2011 05:37PM

liah, do you believe even half of the crap these men post about their successes online in seduction forums with women?

Vast majority of it is exaggeration!

Does it not strike you as counterproductive that the community itself reinforces using terms like "HB," "target," "close," etc that clearly objectify their 'prey'? I have no problems with men realizing we shouldn't be on pedestals, in fact I very much like the idea that they're copping on, but I do have problems with replacing that worshipping/fear with arrogance/lack of consideration for the other person.

It purposefully objectifies women so that the man wont give a damn if he is shot down. Many men who use these techniques are the type who who fear approaching women in case they get rejected, this tactic gets them over that.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 05:42PM

Is the predator/prey thing a big deal. I agree it probably teaches men that women are prey but isn't this just natural view point men who are very successful with women have.
It's almost always up to the man to chat up the woman so it seems that if a man didn't have at least some sort of predator instinct he wouldn't be very good at it.

I think maybe you have a romanticised view of how dating works and PUA is basically the reality written down into repeatable steps. The reality conflicts with the sentimental view of two people falling for each other.

liah · 08-06-2011 05:43PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

They sound manipulative because they are but then so is natural socializing. Isn't putting an effort to smile more to keep everyone at ease manipulative?

I don't do that so I don't know.

Well if their aim is to get sex and they get then I don't see how it's the wrong way to go about it.

It's the wrong way of going about it because it fails to take into consideration that the person they're talking to probably does not want to be manipulated.

How is it destructive to the women? They want to sleep with him. Yes they have been manipulated but anyone who is well liked is that way because they manipulate people into liking them. It's just not a conscious effort. Being likable isn't natural for a lot of people so they have to learn it. It's no less manipulative than making people laugh so they like you or learning how to make people laugh.

No, they want to sleep with the image he's set up, but they don't actually want to sleep with him; he had to twist and manipulate them to get them to do so. And it's destructive because it produces a mentality that objectifies women and treats getting to know a woman as only a means to an end for sex, and I don't think this is a healthy attitude to actively promote in people.

And you honestly think that the only way people can be well-liked is if they're manipulative? You are incredibly, incredibly cynical - it's really not the case at all. People are well-liked for a very wide variety of reasons (including being a genuine, straight-forward person), and I doubt many people continue to like someone they find out has been manipulating them the whole time.

Basically everyone lies about themselves in order to pick up the opposite sex. Everyone acts differently when they are trying to impress people, they cover their flaws and exaggerate their good points. It's self defeating not to do this in fact I'd go as far to say it would show social ineptitude to not do this.

You speak for everyone, but you really shouldn't. I don't lie in order to pick up partners as I see it as completely counterproductive. I would not want people to lie to or manipulate me, so I do not do it to them. It's actually pretty easy, and much lighter on the aul' conscience.

What I do agree with you is that it dehumanizes women but that's also probably why it works. I don't think it's a good way to start a relationship but that's probably not what they're looking for. If it helps them get sex until they're naturally comfortable around women to form meaningful relationships then I don't see the harm.

But why do they feel that they're allowed to manipulate others/dehumanize others just to get laid, that's the part I don't understand. It's the lack of conscience, the lack of considering how the other person might react to finding out, after the fact, that they have been lied to all night and were just used for sex.

It's the lack of empathy it promotes that worries me.

RedXIV · 08-06-2011 05:49PM

liah wrote: »

You'll notice that this thread isn't about the book, it's about PUA in general, and the book was literally only an example (indicated by my use of e.g.) and NOT what the focus of the discussion should be; merely something that most people have heard of that lays out these 'rules.' That's literally it. I prefer to follow communities with people who actually use this stuff, like r/seduction, to get my opinions, rather than just be won over by some happy little "but he decided it was all vapid in the end" ending in only one source of material for a very large concept.

My apologies, generally the only source debated is the book and as such, i'm rehashing older posts

liah wrote: »

Does it not strike you as counterproductive that the community itself reinforces using terms like "HB," "target," "close," etc that clearly objectify their 'prey'? I have no problems with men realizing we shouldn't be on pedestals, in fact I very much like the idea that they're copping on, but I do have problems with replacing that worshipping/fear with arrogance/lack of consideration for the other person.

The terminology is almost all derived from one PUA known as mystery. The terminology has stuck with the community because it is its jargon. This is what it started with. The point of most of the terminology was/is to objectify the process that was involved in attracting women. Mystery believed he had created a scientific formula and he was using terms to promote this idea.

The point about replacing fear with arrogance is unfair though. I've done my time in nightclubs trying to find a nice girl and if with the amount of rejection any man gets, its hard to believe "yes but she's a decent human being". One of the major obstacles for men is the fear of rejection from someone even if it is as polite as "sorry but I have a boyfriend", the embarrassment for some is massive. It was for me when I was younger anyway

you may not like it but a guy on a night out looking for a girl, is pretty much thinking "targets" anyway.

liah wrote: »

Again, I am not talking about the book. I am talking about the PUA community in general. Me having or not having read the book has no relevance - it was only an example so people would understand the type of thing I'm talking about. It is not my source of material and it is not where I have formed my opinions, I've formed them mostly around the r/seduction community and everything I feel towards PUA is because of the people who use it and talk about it, not from high-profile authors or books.

Have you actually met someone and talked to them about it? I don't mean on a forum, I mean face to face? there's a few people who do it on boards. I could give you my account, but its slightly biased as you may have already guessed

I have as much a problem with a lot of self-help crap as I do with PUA tbh, but that's another topic for another day.

Ah so you don't believe in self help stuff?

Truth is there is a massive market out there for manipulation that people have either become desensitized to or don't even realise it anymore. PUA's main belief is about putting forward the best possible version of you to increase your chances of attracting someone. Women do this by using make up, wearing revealing clothes, doing hair etc etc. There are numerous magazines aimed at women with the likes of "How to get your dream man" or "how to satisfy your man in bed" which have become so mainstream that no one notices anymore. Women have become so powerful in the attraction field that men have started to start to do things like PUA so they can keep up.

liah · 08-06-2011 05:51PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

liah, do you believe even half of the crap these men post about their successes online in seduction forums with women?

Not all, but some; I've met a fair few people who've been into it and I do know how it goes down, and I do know it happens an awful lot.

It purposefully objectifies women so that the man wont give a damn if he is shot down. Many men who use these techniques are the type who who fear approaching women in case they get rejected, this tactic gets them over that.

There's other ways to do that without objectifying women, though, and it seems like an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it. A mentality like that "objectify them so you can feel okay," is just going to make them use that idea in every other facet of life and will lead them to just believe all women are dumb, vapid whores.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Is the predator/prey thing a big deal.

Yes. Yes, it is. I want to feel like an equal to anyone I want to have sex with, not like their prey, not like a prize, not like a target - but like a person, someone who is equal to them.

I agree it probably teaches men that women are prey but isn't this just natural view point men who are very successful with women have.

It depends on what you mean by successful. If by 'success' you mean 'get laid a lot and leave a trail of emotional destruction in your wake,' then sure, I guess. But what do you want - quantity or quality? Because all this is going to get you is quantity with absolutely no quality, and all that's going to do is further entrench the whole "women are dumb vapid whores" mindset.

I think maybe you have a romanticised view of how dating works and PUA is basically the reality written down into repeatable steps. The reality conflicts with the sentimental view of two people falling for each other.

It's the terms and language that I have the biggest problems with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a guy to be confident and to stop putting women on pedestals, in fact I wish there were more options available to help them to do so. It's the tone, the vocabulary, and the type of people who are attracted to it that I have issue with.

I don't have a romanticized view of how dating works, I've dated and been in relationships before and luckily managed to avoid all this guff thus far. But I am terrified of it because there's two things I hate more than anything on the planet, and that is 1) being manipulated and 2) being disrespected, and this encompasses both those things, and sets my gender, and therefore me, as its target.

Wolfe Tone · 08-06-2011 05:58PM

There's other ways to do that without objectifying women, though, and it seems like an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it. A mentality like that "objectify them so you can feel okay," is just going to make them use that idea in every other facet of life and will lead them to just believe all women are dumb, vapid whores.

Like what? You already said you don't believe in self help.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 06:01PM

liah wrote: »

And you honestly think that the only way people can be well-liked is if they're manipulative? You are incredibly, incredibly cynical - it's really not the case at all. People are well-liked for a very wide variety of reasons (including being a genuine, straight-forward person), and I doubt many people continue to like someone they find out has been manipulating them the whole time.

If people like you it's because you have made people like you. Persuasion is manipulation. Just because it happens naturally doesn't mean it's not manipulation.

You speak for everyone, but you really shouldn't. I don't lie in order to pick up partners as I see it as completely counterproductive. I would not want people to lie to or manipulate me, so I do not do it to them. It's actually pretty easy, and much lighter on the aul' conscience.

I don't believe you. I'm not talking about saying you earn €100,000 a year I'm just talking about putting in extra effort to be nice and stuff like that and yes I do believe everyone does this it's just a standard part of socializing. When people are around their families and people they don't want to impress they act completely differently.

But why do they feel that they're allowed to manipulate others/dehumanize others just to get laid, that's the part I don't understand. It's the lack of conscience, the lack of considering how the other person might react to finding out, after the fact, that they have been lied to all night and were just used for sex.

Why should they care? Like I said they are just doing what comes naturally to others. Some people learn these skills through their own social interactions and some people learn them through a book. I don't see what's the big deal. I don't see what's wrong with dehumanizing people.

It's the lack of empathy it promotes that worries me.

I think the fact having less empathy for women makes you more sexually successful is the worrying thing. The truth guys who can empathize with women are less successful with women.

liah · 08-06-2011 06:04PM

RedXIV wrote: »

The terminology is almost all derived from one PUA known as mystery. The terminology has stuck with the community because it is its jargon. This is what it started with. The point of most of the terminology was/is to objectify the process that was involved in attracting women. Mystery believed he had created a scientific formula and he was using terms to promote this idea.

Do you agree with this method of terminology?

The point about replacing fear with arrogance is unfair though. I've done my time in nightclubs trying to find a nice girl and if with the amount of rejection any man gets, its hard to believe "yes but she's a decent human being". One of the major obstacles for men is the fear of rejection from someone even if it is as polite as "sorry but I have a boyfriend", the embarrassment for some is massive. It was for me when I was younger anyway you may not like it but a guy on a night out looking for a girl, is pretty much thinking "targets" anyway.

But do you think this manner of objectification is the only solution to getting over these issues?

Have you actually met someone and talked to them about it? I don't mean on a forum, I mean face to face? there's a few people who do it on boards. I could give you my account, but its slightly biased as you may have already guessed

Yes, I have. Tbh the patterns of thought mildly disturbed me, they seemed to have no qualms with causing emotional fallout, and never really seemed to think about how the woman might feel about the whole thing, and when when I questioned them about it they more or less blew me off and chalked it up to me "not getting it because I'm a chick." Needless to say, here I am, trying to find a more constructive answer :pac:

I would be interested in hearing your accounts, and I have a question - have you ever told any of the women you used PUA on that you did, in fact, use PUA on them? Or told any women you've been out with that you've been involved in PUA in the past (if you didn't use it on them)? If so, what were their reactions?

Ah so you don't believe in self help stuff?

The majority of it is pure guff that teaches people to bulldoze over other people in order to get what they want, or teaches them to internalize so much they fail to understand the world doesn't revolve around them, or includes absolutely baffling pseudoscience that doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. I don't have much faith in the whole self help book thing, but perhaps I've just not met the right material yet.

Truth is there is a massive market out there for manipulation that people have either become desensitized to or don't even realise it anymore. PUA's main belief is about putting forward the best possible version of you to increase your chances of attracting someone. Women do this by using make up, wearing revealing clothes, doing hair etc etc. There are numerous magazines aimed at women with the likes of "How to get your dream man" or "how to satisfy your man in bed" which have become so mainstream that no one notices anymore. Women have become so powerful in the attraction field that men have started to start to do things like PUA so they can keep up.

Does it not seem counterproductive to fight fire with fire, so to speak? The fact that things like 'The Rules' or whatever exist for women seems like a pretty weak reason to get into it, too. You'd figure men wouldn't want to sink down to that level considering how much aggravation it's probably caused them.

I guess I forget about the women's side of it as I don't read women's mags or watch women's tv or anything so I have no concept of what's out there on our end. But for some reason, the women's side of it strikes me more as "wanting to please" rather than "wanting to get one over on someone," if that makes sense. Again, I've only had limited exposure, so this assumption could be pretty far off.

Permabear · 08-06-2011 06:12PM

This post has been deleted.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 06:13PM

liah wrote: »

There's other ways to do that without objectifying women, though, and it seems like an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it. A mentality like that "objectify them so you can feel okay," is just going to make them use that idea in every other facet of life and will lead them to just believe all women are dumb, vapid whores.

Why should the guy care about this? If a view like that makes him better with women isn't that the sad thing? Not his problem really.

Yes. Yes, it is. I want to feel like an equal to anyone I want to have sex with, not like their prey, not like a prize, not like a target - but like a person, someone who is equal to them.

You don't have to do the approaching. If you want to just hang around someone will approach you. This won't work for a man so obviously they have to do the approaching and this viewpoint helps with that. Is psyches you up. Not everyone has to read a book to get this viewpoint of predator/prey it's pretty natural for a lot of guys.

It depends on what you mean by successful. If by 'success' you mean 'get laid a lot and leave a trail of emotional destruction in your wake,' then sure, I guess. But what do you want - quantity or quality? Because all this is going to get you is quantity with absolutely no quality, and all that's going to do is further entrench the whole "women are dumb vapid whores" mindset.

What trail of emotional destruction? The woman doesn't even know that she's been manipulated otherwise it wouldn't work. Do you think the guy explains it afterwards. As far as she's concerned it's identical to every other one night stand.

Also what are you on about quality for. Why assume you will get a lower quality woman? This also shows your belief you don't think this stuff would work on you when the truth is you can't possible know that. Maybe it has worked on you and you just weren't aware of it.

It's the terms and language that I have the biggest problems with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a guy to be confident and to stop putting women on pedestals, in fact I wish there were more options available to help them to do so. It's the tone, the vocabulary, and the type of people who are attracted to it that I have issue with.

So snobbery then?

liah · 08-06-2011 06:15PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Like what? You already said you don't believe in self help.

I don't believe in what most self-help books have to say; I don't discredit it completely though.

I guess I have a skewed perspective as I managed to overcome some serious social issues (to the point where I couldn't order fast food) completely on my own. But what helped me wasn't reading books, it was just making myself go out and do stuff I was scared of before. And I certainly didn't gain my confidence by mentally putting people on a lower scale than myself; I did it by just understanding that most people have been through the same crap I have and that I just needed to treat people how I wanted to be treated. Worked like a charm (albeit it was gradual). But I get that this doesn't work for everyone, and that some people feel they need to read a book.

Therapy seems like a much healthier solution than teaching objectification.

SugarHigh wrote: »

If people like you it's because you have made people like you. Persuasion is manipulation. Just because it happens naturally doesn't mean it's not manipulation.

I didn't "make" anyone do anything. I was just myself, and people either liked that or they didn't. I didn't lead anyone on into thinking anything about me that wasn't true. I didn't have to persuade anyone to do anything. And a lot of people are just like me in that respect. So I think you're just speaking for yourself on this one.

Also, there's a big difference between unconscious and conscious manipulation - conscious manipulation and utilizing human beings as targets is what's creepy, smiling at a girl you like because that's just the reaction you have isn't. Do you see what I mean?

It's the planning that is the manipulative part. It's the conscious decisions involved that are the problem.

I don't believe you. I'm not talking about saying you earn €100,000 a year I'm just talking about putting in extra effort to be nice and stuff like that and yes I do believe everyone does this it's just a standard part of socializing. When people are around their families and people they don't want to impress they act completely differently.

Are you talking consciously or unconsciously?

I make a point of not trying to consciously manipulate people, but I can't be held responsible for what happens without me consciously choosing to do it.

Why should they care? Like I said they are just doing what comes naturally to others. Some people learn these skills through their own social interactions and some people learn them through a book. I don't see what's the big deal. I don't see what's wrong with dehumanizing people.

Why shouldn't they care?

Again, it's not the skills I really have the problem with - it's the package the skills are coming in, as I've clarified in my posts to RedXIV.

I think the fact having less empathy for women makes you more sexually successful is the worrying thing. The truth guys who can empathize with women are less successful with women.

Of course it's the worrying thing. I don't want to be used. Why would I? Nobody feels good when they find out they've been lied to, manipulated, or used, especially after you've been in bed with that person. Morally, it strikes me as wrong to consciously do that to people. It's just the complete disregard for how the other party might feel about it.

You seem to think empathy is a bad thing or something, is that the case?

liah · 08-06-2011 06:25PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

Why should the guy care about this? If a view like that makes him better than women isn't that the sad thing? Not his problem really.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the part in the bold. Can you clarify?

You don't have to do the approaching. If you want to just hang around someone will approach you. This won't work for a man so obviously they have to do the approaching and this viewpoint helps with that. Is psyches you up. Not everyone has to read a book to get this viewpoint of predator/prey it's pretty natural for a lot of guys.

Sounds like a cop-out tbh. Just because it's 'natural' to think of women as prey doesn't mean it's a good thing, especially in 2011, after so much fighting has been done for equality. It's perfectly 'natural' to do a lot of things that are really not valuable in this era. It sounds like something for men who don't have the maturity to be honest about their intentions to hide behind.

What trail of emotional destruction? The woman doesn't even know that she's been manipulated otherwise it wouldn't work. Do you think the guy explains it afterwards. As far as she's concerned it's identical to every other one night stand.

I've known quite a few women who've found out they were played by players and the results weren't pretty at all. Again, nobody likes being lied to or manipulated, and lies and manipulation usually get found out.

Also what are you on about quality for. Why assume you will get a lower quality woman? This also shows your belief you don't think this stuff would work on you when the truth is you can't possible know that. Maybe it has worked on you and you just weren't aware of it.

Because it's a numbers game, nine times out of ten you won't end up with the best girl of the bunch but rather the most naive of them.

I already said in the OP that it's something I'm worried about affecting me, which indicates that I do think it could work on me, but I am also very aware of the strategies used so I'd have a higher chance than most to figure out what's going on - but by no means am I saying I'm immune, if I was immune it wouldn't bother me at all, but the fact is it bothers me so much because I don't want to be manipulated and know that I probably will be, and hate it.

So snobbery then?

If you're going to start being childish like this I'm not going to bother responding to you, it's not hard to tell from the context of my posts exactly what I'm referring to. It has nothing to do with snobbery - it has to do with the fact that it perpetuates objectification, and I disagree with that for very obvious reasons.

Wolfe Tone · 08-06-2011 06:27PM

I don't believe in what most self-help books have to say; I don't discredit it completely though.

I guess I have a skewed perspective as I managed to overcome some serious social issues (to the point where I couldn't order fast food) completely on my own. But what helped me wasn't reading books, it was just making myself go out and do stuff I was scared of before. And I certainly didn't gain my confidence by mentally putting people on a lower scale than myself; I did it by just understanding that most people have been through the same crap I have and that I just needed to treat people how I wanted to be treated. Worked like a charm (albeit it was gradual). But I get that this doesn't work for everyone, and that some people feel they need to read a book.

Therapy seems like a much healthier solution than teaching objectification.

Thats what a lot of PUA is! It helps people to do just that, it lays it out in formulaic, bite sized chunks. An example would be to simply say hello to ten random pretty women when you are out shopping, something many men are afraid to do.

It helps them get over that hump. The other stuff evolves from the "right I've said hello, what next, tell me what to do!" It involves having interesting stuff to say, avoiding awkward silences etc etc etc

It promises success, it lays it out simply, tells you exactly what to do, it works and it is achievable.

It can really help some people.

RedXIV · 08-06-2011 06:30PM

liah wrote: »

Do you agree with this method of terminology?

I don't approve or disapprove of it. I merely use it to understand what they are saying. The same way when someone talks to me about my sogi in my kata is wrong in martial arts or if RAM is made of Bytes in computers. I don't approve or disapprove, I merely understand.

liah wrote: »

But do you think this manner of objectification is the only solution to getting over these issues?

Probably not, but its probably the second easiest with the over consumption of alcohol just beating it. But if I walk out in the middle of a busy street and ask someone the time, I don't want to know that the person has a degree in something, likes poetry and deep down is dying to be a doctor. I haven't the time nor the inclination to learn all this. If I were to approach a woman and she rejected me, Why would I want to validate her position when she just turned down my attention? 90% of women will tell you that they don't approach guys in night clubs, there have been various polls on boards about this. That leaves women with all the power to choose who to interact with. Your suggestion that a man should see a woman he'd like to talk to as an equal simply isn't true because a woman will get FAR more attention than a man.

Objectification might not be the answer but while woman have all the power as is the case 90% of the time, its the best alot of men can deal with.

liah wrote: »

Yes, I have. Tbh the patterns of thought mildly disturbed me, they seemed to have no qualms with causing emotional fallout, and never really seemed to think about how the woman might feel about the whole thing, and when when I questioned them about it they more or less blew me off and chalked it up to me "not getting it because I'm a chick." Needless to say, here I am, trying to find a more constructive answer :pac:

Well when I was doing it I was mainly interested in getting past the initial ice breaker, getting a conversation. I find it hard to believe, at least I hope anyway, that you will not find that as disturbing

The thing is, it IS different for a woman, and with the points I mentioned above, I hope I've illustrated some of that. Men chase, women choose to put it simply.

liah wrote: »

I would be interested in hearing your accounts, and I have a question - have you ever told any of the women you used PUA on that you did, in fact, use PUA on them? Or told any women you've been out with that you've been involved in PUA in the past (if you didn't use it on them)? If so, what were their reactions?

My partner and mother of my child (soon to be of a second aswell) knows I've read this stuff before. We've had the same arguments that you and I are having now. I'm pretty sure she's not convinced but then again, i'm also pretty sure neither are you

Maybe I'm just bad at arguing. Perhaps even I'm wrong (:eek:) but either way, I wouldn't change what I learned and done. Perhaps its because you see PUA as "tricking a girl to sleep with me" and I see it as "How to be better with the opposite sex".

My partner is still with me, so either I've kept the image up or she doesn't mind

But I can promise you I've never used any of the forumlas sprouting on the seduction forums.

liah wrote: »

The majority of it is pure guff that teaches people to bulldoze over other people in order to get what they want, or teaches them to internalize so much they fail to understand the world doesn't revolve around them, or includes absolutely baffling pseudoscience that doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. I don't have much faith in the whole self help book thing, but perhaps I've just not met the right material yet.

Its possible that it doesn't appeal to you because you just don't need it. I showed the game to a friend of mine who was always good with girls, unconsciously doing some of the stuff in the book and he regards it as pure rubbish so perhaps thats it?

liah wrote: »

Does it not seem counterproductive to fight fire with fire, so to speak? The fact that things like 'The Rules' or whatever exist for women seems like a pretty weak reason to get into it, too. You'd figure men wouldn't want to sink down to that level considering how much aggravation it's probably caused them.

Well thats all very well and good but I wasn't going to take the moral high ground when I wanted a relationship. Instead I learned how to make myself a better person, present myself better and use that to make my search for a partner easier. I think it's a bit unfair condemning someone who learns the rules of engagment in a nightclub when you say yourself, women are following their own set

liah wrote: »

I guess I forget about the women's side of it as I don't read women's mags or watch women's tv or anything so I have no concept of what's out there on our end. But for some reason, the women's side of it strikes me more as "wanting to please" rather than "wanting to get one over on someone," if that makes sense. Again, I've only had limited exposure, so this assumption could be pretty far off.

At least you acknowledge the women's side

thats a great start! Once again though, I can't agree with the idea that its "wanting to get one over on someone" because thats not how I view it

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 06:31PM

liah wrote: »

I didn't "make" anyone do anything. I was just myself, and people either liked that or they didn't. I didn't lead anyone on into thinking anything about me that wasn't true. I didn't have to persuade anyone to do anything. And a lot of people are just like me in that respect. So I think you're just speaking for yourself on this one.

You don't get what I mean. Your actions decided their feelings so yes you did make them like you since you control your own actions.

Also, there's a big difference between unconscious and conscious manipulation - conscious manipulation and utilizing human beings as targets is what's creepy, smiling at a girl you like because that's just the reaction you have isn't. Do you see what I mean?

It's the planning that is the manipulative part. It's the conscious decisions involved that are the problem.

Yes there is a bid difference between conscious and unconscious manipulation but why should only those who can do it naturally get the benefits. If you can't naturally make people like you should you just live a lonely life or should you learn how to make them like you?

Yes it sounds creepy but why should the person doing it care? Should he just lead a sh1t life because you think it sounds creepy?
This clearly works for a lot of people so why should they do something else if this works.

Are you talking consciously or unconsciously?

I make a point of not trying to consciously manipulate people, but I can't be held responsible for what happens without me consciously choosing to do it.

unconsciously. Yes you can do it naturally so you get benefits. There isn't anything wrong with what you are doing so I don't why it becomes wrong when someone need to make a conscious effort to do it.

You seem to think empathy is a bad thing or something, is that the case?

When it comes to picking up with then yes. I don't want to get into a discussion about friend zones but it's normally guys who empathize with women who get put into them. They become a friend and some asexual. The truth is treating women badly isn't a bad thing if you want to have sex with them.

liah · 08-06-2011 06:32PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Thats what a lot of PUA is! It helps people to do just that, it lays it out in formulaic, bite sized chunks. An example would be to simply say hello to ten random pretty women when you are out shopping, something many men are afraid to do.

Which is something I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the stuff like "HB," "target," "closing," "sarging," all the other lingo used to reduce the entire affair to a manipulation tactic.

It's not the premise I have a problem with, it's the presentation they chose that I find to be particularly counterproductive for anyone who wants to build genuine confidence - genuine confidence is not built by assuming people are inferior to you.

It helps them get over that hump. The other stuff evolves from the "right I've said hello, what next, tell me what to do!" It involves having interesting stuff to say, avoiding awkward silences etc etc etc

It promises success, it lays it out simply, tells you exactly what to do, it works and it is achievable.

It can really help some people.

Again, I find the idea of teaching those things to be wonderful, and agree with the majority of it. I just think the jargon, terminology and structure is poorly thought-out, and that a very large part of the PUA community uses it as a means for objectification and manipulation rather than any sort of genuine self-help/improvement.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 06:39PM

liah wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the part in the bold. Can you clarify?

Typing error. I meant better with women not better than.

Sounds like a cop-out tbh. Just because it's 'natural' to think of women as prey doesn't mean it's a good thing, especially in 2011, after so much fighting has been done for equality. It's perfectly 'natural' to do a lot of things that are really not valuable in this era. It sounds like something for men who don't have the maturity to be honest about their intentions to hide behind.

It's a good thing in terms of achieving the aim of getting her into bed. I don't see maturity has to do with it. If they were honest about their intention they wouldn't get anywhere. Being honest is self defeating.

I've known quite a few women who've found out they were played by players and the results weren't pretty at all. Again, nobody likes being lied to or manipulated, and lies and manipulation usually get found out.

How do you know they usually get found out. It's impossible to measure the ones that don't get found out.

Because it's a numbers game, nine times out of ten you won't end up with the best girl of the bunch but rather the most naive of them.

Says you. I think the most skilled at picking up women is going to get the best women. I this books makes you better at picking up with women I don't see why quality would go down. They want the hottest girl why would they care if she's naive? How does that make her lower quality.

The Ethics of PUA

Comments