Balaclava1991 wrote: » I have been with a few women and like any other man who has experienced some success with the opposite sex, I have learned what works and what doesn't. If I could go back and time and tell my past self what mistakes I should have avoided and what signals I should picked up on I would. If I ever have a son I am going to teach him how to pick up women to spare him the heartbreak I went through before I became comfortable talking to and approaching women.
Balaclava1991 wrote: » In the past when mankind lived in small bands the opportunity to have sex was extremely limited.
If a man fluffed his approach and is publicly humiliated that was it! It was only when mankind started living in large towns and cities that sexual promiscuity became possible which around the same time when religions began and adultery and chastity became major preoccupations and taboos were obeyed on pain of death.
Psychopathic men are often prolific womanizers. This is probably a evolutionary throwback to the time of hunter gatherers when resources were limited and men had to live much more by their wits than today. They had to kill other men and act on impulse and without regret and their only options were to steal women or rape them or fool them into sex when they were already taken by other rival men.
When farming was discovered and human populations grew and people no longer roamed far and wide for food and started living in towns and cities, with law and order and religion, the domesticated man flourished but the wild man or psychopath died out or else put on the mask of sanity to blend in among the herd.
The psychopath gene still exists and pure psychopaths who are extremely independent minded, resourceful, prey on human weakness, who have no fear, act on impulse and have no regrets about their actions roam like wolves among the sheep. These individuals are adept at lowering a woman's defenses. Violent psychopaths kidnap and murder women but most psychopaths are not violent but lie cheat and fool women. They have the evolutionary disadvantage of not being trust worthy and women have evolved their defense mechanisms to counter them.
Romantic love and the idea of one true love has existed for thousands of years and this means men seek out virginal sweet hearts and women chose knights in shining armor.
A man who has struggled all his life to climb the promotion ladder is also likely to have struggled to get accepted by women and this kind of man believes in the ONE.
Men will forgive emotional infidelity but not sexual infidelity.
A lothario or psychopathic man who is only after one thing and who could have numerous sexual encounters with women is not a dependable father figure. He has to evolutionary advantage of being handsome, physically attractive, has the natural gift in seduction etc but he has a evolutionary disadvantage in his lack of interest in settling down.
Talib Fiasco wrote: » I'm only a young fella still but what I see is that guys of this generation put women on such a high pedestal
Reekwind wrote: » You mean, aside from the distillation of human interaction into a series of manipulative mechanisms (complete with ridiculous terminology) to get someone laid?
Wibbs wrote: » While not concerned with sex of course one could suggest that much of the self help stuff for women is puerile too, but it does get less flak than the PUA stuff
Behind the surface hard sell of negs and AFC's and all that shíte I found it interesting from the social point of view. That so many men apparently needed such a place where men could talk with men and that the PUA bullshít was more of an umbrella for support and self help.
Balaclava1991 wrote: Obviously if you want to be happy in life you should be aiming ultimately for a permanent relationship with a woman and looking forward to being a good husband and a good father. You will NEVER get there unless you learn by trial and error how to attract a woman and how to progress from hello to sex and romance. If there is guidebook to get there and you can learn from the experiences of other men then why not? No relationship is without some degree of deceit and manipulation.
Reekwind wrote: » I genuinely can't think how its more puerile though. Even the most obvious counterpart to The Game (The Rules, as mentioned), while arguably taking the same manipulative angle, is concerned with relationships. Very different from alpha PUAs sarging around to [insert additional cringeworthy lingo here] Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of self-help books for women that shouldn't be criticised, and often are, for various reasons but I can't think of any quite so adolescent in mindset as the PUA scene Which I can understand. As with all self-help works, the sheer positivity of the genre (it's in the name - by buying the book you've already taken the first step to improve yourself) and provision of a shared space to discuss this is not a bad thing per se. I don't think anyone can belittle the benefit in giving shy people, and I would count myself amongst them, a confidence boost With self-help tomes this confidence giving solution is a harmless placenta. The reason that PUAs attract such derision, from one quarter at least, that that here the 'solution' is based on a profoundly mechanistic and regressive view of human relations. It's building confidence through teaching manipulation and eroding respect for the other half of the species, all with the end goal of sex A book about getting people into relationships? Fine. Building real emotional connections with other people? Fine. Becoming a rounded human being? Fine. Using rote techniques to lower a woman's self-esteem so that she'll sleep with you? Not fine I've obviously been doing it all wrong. Instead of simply going out and 'hitting it off with someone', I clearly should have gotten them to a Comfort Building Location, performed a MCR, throw in a bit of negging and BHRR to get her to DHV herself and then home for a ONS Now there is a world of difference between that - a very mechanical, manipulative (and thus dismissive) approach to sex - and the simple process of living that actually makes us human. Which approach do you think is more conductive to building a relationship? And incidentally, your post with Wibbs (hunter-gather sex and whatnot) are pure pub-science
Reekwind wrote: » With self-help tomes this confidence giving solution is a harmless placenta.
Vitaliorange wrote: In any genre specific language develops to allow the subject matter to be discussed with more brevity and accuracy. I don't see the problem
For example it could take a guy months or longer of practice to realize a woman will comply with your command when you look her in the eye. Why not tell that guy that he should look her in the eyes when he takes her hand and says " lets move over here" and speed up his learning curve.. This is social skills, calling it "manipulative" doesn't make it wrong.
Candie wrote: I'll never be able to type placebo, without smiling, again.
Reekwind wrote: » It doesn't strike you as cringeworthily macho and adolescent? And you're absolutely fine with transporting this sort hyper-geek lingo into the world of relationships between people? How strange I've not questioned it's effectiveness - not because I believe it to be effective but because that's an irrelevancy. Of far more concern is the idea that you think it's advisable to teach people how to "command" women. And you put that in as cold a manner as you'd talk about training a dog. That's a problem and it's the crux of the matter - such manipulation implies disrespect. You are the actor, she is the object and here is your toolset for getting her into bed Leaving aside the whole issue as to why this is not particularly healthy, can you see why people might consider this to be a ridiculously adolescent approach of relationships and sex? Now I'm worried that that was some sort of Freudian slip. The placenta isn't even a particularly sexy thing. Or so I've been told
Reekwind wrote: » I've not questioned it's effectiveness - not because I believe it to be effective but because that's an irrelevancy. Of far more concern is the idea that you think it's advisable to teach people how to "command" women. And you put that in as cold a manner as you'd talk about training a dog. That's a problem and it's the crux of the matter - such manipulation implies disrespect. You are the actor, she is the object and here is your toolset for getting her into bed
Reekwind wrote: » I genuinely can't think how its more puerile though. Even the most obvious counterpart to The Game (The Rules, as mentioned), while arguably taking the same manipulative angle, is concerned with relationships. Very different from alpha PUAs sarging around to [insert additional cringeworthy lingo here] Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of self-help books for women that shouldn't be criticised, and often are, for various reasons but I can't think of any quite so adolescent in mindset as the PUA scene Which I can understand. As with all self-help works, the sheer positivity of the genre (it's in the name - by buying the book you've already taken the first step to improve yourself) and provision of a shared space to discuss this is not a bad thing per se. I don't think anyone can belittle the benefit in giving shy people, and I would count myself amongst them, a confidence boost With self-help tomes this confidence giving solution is a harmless placebo [edit: Not placenta, definitely not placenta]. The reason that PUAs attract such derision, from one quarter at least, that that here the 'solution' is based on a profoundly mechanistic and regressive view of human relations. It's building confidence through teaching manipulation and eroding respect for the other half of the species, all with the end goal of sex A book about getting people into relationships? Fine. Building real emotional connections with other people? Fine. Becoming a rounded human being? Fine. Using rote techniques to lower a woman's self-esteem so that she'll sleep with you? Not fine I've obviously been doing it all wrong. Instead of simply going out and 'hitting it off with someone', I clearly should have gotten them to a Comfort Building Location, performed a MCR, throw in a bit of negging and BHRR to get her to DHV herself and then home for a ONS Now there is a world of difference between that - a very mechanical, manipulative (and thus dismissive) approach to sex - and the simple process of living that actually makes us human. Which approach do you think is more conductive to building a relationship? And incidentally, your post with Wibbs (hunter-gather sex and whatnot) are pure pub-science
Reekwind wrote: » I've not questioned it's effectiveness - not because I believe it to be effective but because that's an irrelevancy.
smurgen wrote: » I think this is the jist of my problem with this p.u.a thing. Basically I think it's probably effective for superficial , short term relationships but not a good foundation for a long term one. Why in gods name would anyone want a woman you can command? a woman you can manipulate? I'd be thinking well if I can command and manipulate her well what's to stop anyone else from doing it?What you want and need is someone who likes you for you. that way if some idiot with cheap tricks who talks to much comes along the woman wont want listen to their crap.
Wibbs wrote: » Oh I dunno if it's irrelevant RK. IMHO at least some of the anger directed at this PUA meme is because it is effective for a subset of women and that freaks people out. The idea that some women respond favorably to being controlled, even seek it out and want an old style gender dynamic is uncomfortable. I've read similar disquiet in a seemingly unrelated area, namely women who convert to Islam. The idea that women would actively seek out such a patriarchal faith(women converts vastly outnumber male ones) is again uncomfortable.
Vitaliorange wrote: » What aspects of "The game" do you find puerile? Also keep in mind the seduction community is completely different now to what it was circa 2001-2002 during the events of "The Game". Back then convoluted scripts and routines were the base of game. Now its much more natural. You say its marketing guff, but a lot of it works if applied intelligently.
Vitaliorange wrote: » There is certainly nothing inherently macho or adolescent about trying to improve an aspect of your life and admitting to yourself that it is your own behavours casuing a lack of success with women
You may think it is inadvisable to tell a woman to move over with you to the other side of the bar but the reality is thats ridiculous and implies a lack of social skills.
Wibbs wrote: Oh I dunno if it's irrelevant RK. IMHO at least some of the anger directed at this PUA meme is because it is effective for a subset of women and that freaks people out. The idea that some women respond favorably to being controlled, even seek it out and want an old style gender dynamic is uncomfortable
I've read similar disquiet in a seemingly unrelated area, namely women who convert to Islam. The idea that women would actively seek out such a patriarchal faith(women converts vastly outnumber male ones) is again uncomfortable.
FTA69 wrote: » Who the f*ck are the "seduction community"? What a ridiculous phrase. Personally I'd mark any man who used that term as a guaranteed bell-end.
Vitaliorange wrote: » Understanding the mechanics of approaching.women doesnt t mean you can't build a genuine connection with a woman.
Reekwind wrote: » Of course not, you're dead right here. It's what follows - the idea that "success with women" requires a toolset of tricks that transforms yourself into an 'alpha male' who can treat women like putty during "the interaction" - that strikes me, and I'd suggest most people, as macho and adolescent. That the end result of all of this, ie how you measure "success", is sex just makes it more puerile I'd suggest that the advisable approach would be to suggest moving to a more private part of the room, rather than fixing her with a death stare and issuing a "command" that she is expected to obey. One approach treats the woman as an equal, the other as an object To clarify: I think its effectiveness is "irrelevant" because whether it works or not I still find the approach and the mindset to be adolescent at best and pretty disturbing at worst. Whether or not people get laid as a result, the fact that they go out and treat women as a puzzle game (a hit to the self-esteem here, a commanding gaze there) is something I personally find objectionable I think that's a whole different discussion and I'd be cautious in reaching such broad generalisations
Reekwind wrote: » To clarify: I think its effectiveness is "irrelevant" because whether it works or not I still find the approach and the mindset to be adolescent at best and pretty disturbing at worst. Whether or not people get laid as a result, the fact that they go out and treat women as a puzzle game (a hit to the self-esteem here, a commanding gaze there) is something I personally find objectionable I think that's a whole different discussion and I'd be cautious in reaching such broad generalisations
Balaclava1991 wrote: » I think most of the hostility to PUA is because it exposes a cruel often bleak reality to human relationships that few are prepared to admit. There is a very disturbing conspiracy sub culture on the internet calling itself True Force Loneliness which is based around men who believe they are too unattractive physically, financially and personality wise to fit within a supposedly false paradigm created by Western culture dominated by capitalism and feminism. This self-pitying grouping has made George Sodini in to their hero. Sodini was a 48 year old nut who shot and killed a group of women in a local gym before taking his own life because of a sustained failure to get a date and posted a series of youtube videos explaining his decision and blaming his extreme loneliness and unhappiness on women. Obviously these men are pathetic and need psychiatric help. However there is certain grain of truth to these paranoid deluded nuts. There is general formula for how to attract women and if you fail to conform to that formula you WILL be lonely. You cannot behave in front of women as you want to have sex or a relationship with if you behave as you do among your friends or family where you can be yourself - dressing like a slob, wolfing your food, not shaving every day, talking rudely and loudly and so forth. You have to conform to women's expectations. A single guy with his own apartment, his own car and a high salary is more likely to be successful than a single guy who lives with his parents, rides a bicycle or public transport and delivers pizza. The universe will un-apologetically cancel a loser's genes out of existence.
Among men who are successful with women and who are in happy relationships and marriages there is a constant nagging fear of reverting to the state of men who are shiftless and lonely.
We are fed on diet of unrealistic romantic movies that show the guy who cravenly sucks up to women will get the girl while the "bully" - the guy with the big car, good job and power gets his comeuppance.Titanic is the classic example in which Jack Dawson, the artist without a pot to p*ss in, gets Rose while her fiance is a super rich and cruel brute who tries to murder them both.
Balaclava1991 wrote: » I think most of the hostility to PUA is because it exposes a cruel often bleak reality to human relationships that few are prepared to admit. There is a very disturbing conspiracy sub culture on the internet calling itself True Force Loneliness which is based around men who believe they are too unattractive physically, financially and personality wise to fit within a supposedly false paradigm created by Western culture dominated by capitalism and feminism. This self-pitying grouping has made George Sodini in to their hero. Sodini was a 48 year old nut who shot and killed a group of women in a local gym before taking his own life because of a sustained failure to get a date and posted a series of youtube videos explaining his decision and blaming his extreme loneliness and unhappiness on women. Obviously these men are pathetic and need psychiatric help. However there is certain grain of truth to these paranoid deluded nuts. There is general formula for how to attract women and if you fail to conform to that formula you WILL be lonely. You cannot behave in front of women as you want to have sex or a relationship with if you behave as you do among your friends or family where you can be yourself - dressing like a slob, wolfing your food, not shaving every day, talking rudely and loudly and so forth. You have to conform to women's expectations. A single guy with his own apartment, his own car and a high salary is more likely to be successful than a single guy who lives with his parents, rides a bicycle or public transport and delivers pizza. The universe will un-apologetically cancel a loser's genes out of existence. Among men who are successful with women and who are in happy relationships and marriages there is a constant nagging fear of reverting to the state of men who are shiftless and lonely. A man feels he must make an effort constantly and he must find out the secret to success with women or he is doomed. It is intolerable to concede that the ONE he has married could be what he settled for out of desperation. We are fed on diet of unrealistic romantic movies that show the guy who cravenly sucks up to women will get the girl while the "bully" - the guy with the big car, good job and power gets his comeuppance.Titanic is the classic example in which Jack Dawson, the artist without a pot to p*ss in, gets Rose while her fiance is a super rich and cruel brute who tries to murder them both.
Wibbs wrote: » Jesus. Ehhhh wut? Only if they're neurotic.
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2: 23-24)
Vitaliorange wrote: » Death stare? Do you never look at people in eyes?
whats wrong with theword "interaction", do you have a problem with that too?
Common PUA advice is to smile when you approach women. Is that a "death smile" in your eyes?
Wibbs wrote: Oh sure RW, but my point was that not the getting laid as result part, but the fact that it seems to work on a subset of women. That a subset of women appear to want to be "dominated" like this and men who act in such a manner are more likely to succeed in getting women(even if as a temporary thing). You do also see the "oh that's stupid and would never work on me" from some quarters. OK put it another way RW, if it didn't work at all, IMHO there would be a lot less dismissal of the whole thing.
Vitaliorange wrote: » Thats what it tends to be called.
Miguel_Sanchez wrote: » All these pick-up books are basically 'how to talk to women' guides for people who have no personalities of their own.
Femme_Fatale wrote: » I think being dismissive of guys who find it hard to talk to women is unhelpful though, and just aids in creating polarisation and hostility, and drawing these guys to the crazy misogynists. Not every guy who finds it hard to get a date is a personality-free mammy's boy who secretly hates women; a lot of lovely guys are crippled by their shyness and it's sad. Women can't just start dating them out of pity either - they are either attracted to them or they aren't, but it's still a shyte situation. Something that builds their confidence in a healthy way while still respecting women can only be a good thing, so a benign, non agenda-driven handbook would be no harm as a starter, IMO. I once read an interview with a guy who advocates just going up to women on the street and telling them they're stunning. Really?! That's just creepiness and much too forward - no matter how good-looking the guy is (before the "It's only creepy if he's not good-looking" brigade arrive). Don't!
Balaclava1991 wrote: » Isn't neurosis the reason why we seek out romantic relationships?
There is evolutionary advantage to unhappiness because it forces us to change ourselves and change the world. If people were happy nothing would happen would it?
The guy who wrote Genesis long ago was onto something when he wrote: There is a disturbing neediness and insecurity in that famous Biblical phrase. This love is possessive and jealous and this talk of flesh and bones hints at violence of some kind or some sort of sick surgery than involves fusing two human beings together.
For the writer of that passage women were clearly hard to come by jealously guarded and controlled and there is a great fear of loneliness and abandonment.
PUA culture is threatening to that sensibility because it "cheats" and goes to the heart of male sexual insecurity.
FTA69 wrote: » By spastics maybe. The "seduction community" my arse.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
