The Game By Neil strauss

Kirby · 12-12-2013 02:15PM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I didn't dismiss them all. I was just wondering how a poster came to a conclusion that they're all drop dead gorgeous up there. You don't run into Icelandics every day.

You do in Iceland.

old hippy · 12-12-2013 02:17PM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I didn't dismiss them all. I was just wondering how a poster came to a conclusion that they're all drop dead gorgeous up there. You don't run into Icelandics every day.

Maybe said poster has visited Iceland? Anyways, we're going way off topic so I'm going to retire and let the rest of you go about your business.

Wibbs · 12-12-2013 02:20PM

If you dig the blonde scandinavian vibe there are a fair amount of beautiful women in Iceland. IIRC them and Columbia have topped the polls of those miss world yokes through the years

old hippy wrote: »

I think not only is she "beautiful" on all counts, she's one of the most talented artists out there.

Both would be subjective opinions and that's cool too. She can scream in tune that's for sure, though her repetitiveness and tortured artist weirdo schtick would put me right off, but that's subjective too.

What is this shallow fascination with perceived beauty, anyway?

It's what humans do to one degree or other. Have done throughout history and culture.

hatrickpatrick · 12-12-2013 03:16PM

osarusan wrote: »

I've never noticed this as any kind of widespreasd problem on boards tbh.

To be fair I think the issue here is people looking at AH and presuming all of Boards is as depraved as we are. Like looking at /b/ and assuming there are no non-psychos on 4chan.

old hippy · 12-12-2013 05:29PM

Wibbs wrote: »

It's what humans do to one degree or other. Have done throughout history and culture.

In song and in dance, I express myself as a member of a higher community. I have forgotten how to walk and speak. I am on the way toward flying in the air, dancing. My very gestures express enchantment. I feel myself a god. Supernatural sounds emanate from me... I walk about enchanted in ecstasy, like the gods walking in my dreams. I am no longer an artist. I have become a work of art.

Wibbs · 12-12-2013 07:27PM

old hippy wrote: »

In song and in dance, I express myself as a member of a higher community. I have forgotten how to walk and speak. I am on the way toward flying in the air, dancing. My very gestures express enchantment. I feel myself a god. Supernatural sounds emanate from me... I walk about enchanted in ecstasy, like the gods walking in my dreams. I am no longer an artist. I have become a work of art.

Yea but George Clooney could say all that and he'd still be better looking than you.

Vitaliorange · 12-12-2013 07:45PM

I'd go as far to say some of the best life advice can be found in PUA these days. Yet its completely overlooked in the mainstream. Its quite funny as well, you see a lot of the behavours he describes on after hours where you get men moaning who think you need to be tall, rich and good looking to get laid or blaming "bitchy" women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZMaiRHjc1Q

12-12-2013 08:15PM

old hippy wrote: »

In song and in dance, I express myself as a member of a higher community. I have forgotten how to walk and speak. I am on the way toward flying in the air, dancing. My very gestures express enchantment. I feel myself a god. Supernatural sounds emanate from me... I walk about enchanted in ecstasy, like the gods walking in my dreams. I am no longer an artist. I have become a work of art.

Life is subjective.

Czarcasm · 12-12-2013 08:23PM

old hippy wrote: »

In song and in dance, I express myself as a member of a higher community. I have forgotten how to walk and speak. I am on the way toward flying in the air, dancing. My very gestures express enchantment. I feel myself a god. Supernatural sounds emanate from me... I walk about enchanted in ecstasy, like the gods walking in my dreams. I am no longer an artist. I have become a work of art.

The very least you could've done hippy would've been to quote the source of your plagarised passage, and it would've been nice in context too. The full passage is far too long to quote here, but the general gist goes something like so -

Man now expresses himself through song and dance as the member of a higher community; he has forgotten how to walk, how to speak, and is on the brink of taking wing as he dances. Each of his gestures betokens enchantment; through him sounds a supernatural power, the same power which makes the animals speak and the earth render up milk and honey.

He feels himself to be godlike and strides with the same elation and ecstasy as the gods he has seen in his dreams. No longer the artist, he has himself become a work of art: the productive power of the whole universe is now manifest in his transport, to the glorious satisfaction of the primordial One. The finest clay, the most precious marble--man--is here kneaded and hewn, and the chisel blows of the Dionysian world artist are accompanied by the cry of the Eleusinian mystagogues: "Do you fall on your knees, multitudes, do you divine your creator?"

Source: "The Birth of Tragedy" by Freidrich Nietzsche.

In an attempt however to come off all God-like, you've merely managed to look very petty with no clue what you're actually talking about, but it sounded intellectual.

Now THAT'S the PUA methodology right there in a nutshell.

Czarcasm · 12-12-2013 08:34PM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

I'd go as far to say some of the best life advice can be found in PUA these days...

I thought "I should stop reading right there", but then I figured I've come this far, but a 52 minute video? Come on now, how about less of those cringe inducing "tutorial" videos, and more of your own thoughts and opinions? You can articulate yourself really well when you want to!

Pug160 · 12-12-2013 09:10PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno. I've certainly gotten "out of my league" more than once. Actually far better looking than me, not the usual blokes in love "my girlfriend is so much better looking than me" level(rarely objectively true in my experience).

Then you're part of what I call the ''significant minority''. I think most of us know or have known at least one man who always seems to attract women who are quite attractive despite being an average Joe. But even so, there's still a difference between attractive and stunning. But then we're getting into subjective territory.

When I was younger there was a time when I used to know a few ''rough and ready'' type characters - the sort of guys from pretty tough working class areas. And something I noticed quite a lot was the ability that some of them had to attract women who were seemingly out of their league (I'm not a big fan of that term - I think it's dehumanising but I'll use it here). The sort of guys who were hypermasculine but although robust looking, in some cases weren't handsome looking at all. Some might say that's hardly surprising considering the demographic but I think that probably happens in more subtle ways throughout the classes. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.

--Kaiser-- · 12-12-2013 09:56PM

Pug160 wrote: »

Then you're part of what I call the ''significant minority''. I think most of us know or have known at least one man who always seems to attract women who are quite attractive despite being an average Joe. But even so, there's still a difference between attractive and stunning. But then we're getting into subjective territory.

When I was younger there was a time when I used to know a few ''rough and ready'' type characters - the sort of guys from pretty tough working class areas. And something I noticed quite a lot was the ability that some of them had to attract women who were seemingly out of their league (I'm not a big fan of that term - I think it's dehumanising but I'll use it here). The sort of guys who were hypermasculine but although robust looking, in some cases weren't handsome looking at all. Some might say that's hardly surprising considering the demographic but I think that probably happens in more subtle ways throughout the classes. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.

It's hardly surprising that women are attracted to masculine males, is it? I saw some TV show where a good looking posh type was going out this rugby player who, to me, he looked like he'd make a good Uruk-hai from Lord of the Rings - without any makeup. I think females have a wider 'spectrum', shall we say, of what they find attractive in a mate (thanks ****, says I)

Legs.Eleven · 12-12-2013 11:06PM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

I'd go as far to say some of the best life advice can be found in PUA these days. Yet its completely overlooked in the mainstream. Its quite funny as well, you see a lot of the behavours he describes on after hours where you get men moaning who think you need to be tall, rich and good looking to get laid or blaming "bitchy" women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZMaiRHjc1Q

Have to say, I haven't watched even one video posted up on this thread. I'd rather clean my oven ventilator. Anyone else?

Vitaliorange · 12-12-2013 11:13PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Have to say, I haven't watched even one video posted up on this thread. I'd rather clean my oven ventilator. Anyone else?

No one is forcing you to read this thread.

A word of advice, the world is a better place when people don't prejudge things they know nothing about.

Czarcasm · 12-12-2013 11:34PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Have to say, I haven't watched even one video posted up on this thread. I'd rather clean my oven ventilator. Anyone else?

I watched them tbh, I wanted to see what Vitaliorange might see in them, and while those videos were terrible, they were less than 15 minutes long. The video above is nearly an hour long, and I just don't know if I'd have the mental fortitude to sit through a whole hour of "skank, bitch, fcuk her this way, fcuk her that way, getting laid by proxy", apeing up in front of the camera, the disinterested audience, the whole fakeness of it, the daft tangents to squeeze in even more daft anecdotes...

And then even if I DO watch it, Vitaliorange won't want to discuss it, but will more than likely just throw up another shìte video clip.

Vitaliorange · 12-12-2013 11:48PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I watched them tbh, I wanted to see what Vitaliorange might see in them, and while those videos were terrible, they were less than 15 minutes long. The video above is nearly an hour long, and I just don't know if I'd have the mental fortitude to sit through a whole hour of "skank, bitch, fcuk her this way, fcuk her that way, getting laid by proxy", apeing up in front of the camera, the disinterested audience, the whole fakeness of it, the daft tangents to squeeze in even more daft anecdotes...

And then even if I DO watch it, Vitaliorange won't want to discuss it, but will more than likely just throw up another shìte video clip.

You are looking for any reason you can to criticize and focusing in on it,you are even there is lots of positive advice to be taken on board when you keep an open mind.

You do realise when your man said "got laid by proxy" he was joking.

Czarcasm · 12-12-2013 11:53PM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

No one is forcing you to read this thread.

A word of advice, the world is a better place when people don't prejudge things they know nothing about.

PUA advocates would do well to remember that when they try to prejudge people. By the way they talk about people and the way they talk to people, it becomes apparent very quickly that these PUA advocates know nothing about what makes a person attractive, nor clearly do the know what makes a person repulsive, if their behaviour and their attitude is anything to go by.

Vitaliorange I'd heard of and read about PUA a long, long time ago, but thankfully they're only one of many minor sub-cultures in society and I don't think there should be any fear that they're a danger to society at large, because the majority of people can see them just for exactly what they are - scared little boys that never grew up beyond puberty, trapped in a physically adult body, intimidated by any social interaction with their adult peers.

pharmaton · 12-12-2013 11:54PM

laaads whats the craic (thats my special chat up line, you can borrow it if you like)

Legs.Eleven · 13-12-2013 12:04AM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

No one is forcing you to read this thread.

A word of advice, the world is a better place when people don't prejudge things they know nothing about.

Just saying I didn't watch your videos. The rest of the thread I read.

Czarcasm · 13-12-2013 12:15AM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

You are looking for any reason you can to criticize and focusing in on it,you are even there is lots of positive advice to be taken on board when you keep an open mind.

That's a bit rich don't you think? We're talking here about people whose only objective in life seems to revolve around taking advantage of people. How open minded does one need to be exactly to think that should be acceptable in society?

I think my criticism has been fair, and I think I've given you a fair shot in this thread. I've listened to what you had to say, I'm reading the book you recommended, I've watched the videos, what more should you expect of someone you think isn't keeping an open mind on the subject?

You do realise when your man said "got laid by proxy" he was joking.

His exact line was (and it's quite a memorable one because I'm not fazed by a whole lot, but this was a whole new level of "What the fcuk?") -

"I like to rest my dong on a bootcamp weekend, so when one of my students gets laid on a bootcamp weekend, I'm like 'Yes! Yeah!', because I'm getting laid by proxy...".

He wasn't joking. That's the saddest part about it. Sad of course as in pathetic, not in the slightest bit upsetting though, but more a spectacle to be ridiculed.

Wibbs · 13-12-2013 12:46AM

Pug160 wrote: »

Then you're part of what I call the ''significant minority''. I think most of us know or have known at least one man who always seems to attract women who are quite attractive despite being an average Joe. But even so, there's still a difference between attractive and stunning. But then we're getting into subjective territory.

When I was younger there was a time when I used to know a few ''rough and ready'' type characters - the sort of guys from pretty tough working class areas. And something I noticed quite a lot was the ability that some of them had to attract women who were seemingly out of their league (I'm not a big fan of that term - I think it's dehumanising but I'll use it here). The sort of guys who were hypermasculine but although robust looking, in some cases weren't handsome looking at all. Some might say that's hardly surprising considering the demographic but I think that probably happens in more subtle ways throughout the classes. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting.

I make Gok Wan look hypermasculine and robust. No really, a stiff breeze would beat me up.

Looking back(and I'm way passed that stage now*hobbles*) I think it was because I just didn't care. I wasn;t actually that pushed. Beyond my "league" or not, it didn't really figure in it. If I was interested in talking with them, I was interested in talking with them regardless. If it didn't get to that stage of mutual engagement, then fine. That's cool. It was usually a mutual thing(In fairness, sometimes it was me whining why not?, the odd time it was them).

When one doesn't actually care about the surface stuff it makes a big diff IME. "Oh she/he is soooo hot, therefore..." Therefore nothing. 1) "Hot" is mostly genetic especially when younger, so big deal, what else have you got in your quiver? Brainless? No thanks. Neurotic? No thanks. Game playing cos you think you can? fcuk right off/I can have some fun here 2) There is always "hotter". It's an economy with competition snapping at your heels. Being "average" is actually less stressful, especially for women IMHO. Being considered gorgeous at 20 is great and you will have choices and you may get fussy and long may it go on for you, but sooner or later there will come a time when you have to back that up with being human, being interesting and fun and kind, but if all you've relied on is a pretty face or tight bum and haven't dialed back the dodgy bits of you that are ignored when you're 20, then at 35/40 you're gonna be left with choices of blokes you'd not even consider when you were 20. I've seen that soooo many times.

Pug160 · 13-12-2013 01:56AM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It's hardly surprising that women are attracted to masculine males, is it? I saw some TV show where a good looking posh type was going out this rugby player who, to me, he looked like he'd make a good Uruk-hai from Lord of the Rings - without any makeup. I think females have a wider 'spectrum', shall we say, of what they find attractive in a mate (thanks ****, says I)

Of course not. But in some cases it almost seems as though certain males are so hypermasculine it actually doesn't matter what they look like facially. That's what surprised me at the time.

Wibbs wrote: »

I make Gok Wan look hypermasculine and robust. No really, a stiff breeze would beat me up. Looking back(and I'm way passed that stage now*hobbles*) I think it was because I just didn't care. I wasn;t actually that pushed. Beyond my "league" or not, it didn't really figure in it. If I was interested in talking with them, I was interested in talking with them regardless. If it didn't get to that stage of mutual engagement, then fine. That's cool. It was usually a mutual thing(In fairness, sometimes it was me whining why not?, the odd time it was them).

Lots of different types of men are successful - I wasn't disputing that. But when I thought about the type of men I've seen who were able to attract pretty looking girls despite not looking great themselves - those types of guys were the first ones I thought of. They're usually very dysfunctional but they're often left with a few important traits that will make a person successful with the opposite sex, initially at least. I think high testosterone is definitely one of the main factors. Very high sex drive coupled with the confidence and experience to make themselves very appealing. Typically guys who lose their virginity very early. I think one thing a lot successful men have, whether it's a man from the gutters or whether it's an educated man with a good job etc, is a kind of carefree attitude. Or at least a seemingly carefree attitude.

* I should add that I'm extremely glad I'm not one of those primitive men, as I don't think it's a particularly fulfilling life they lead. They contibute very little to society and take everything in return. Some of those women may be pretty, but I doubt I could have any sort of conversation with most of them. Bimbos can be decent enough to look at but they have little else going for them. And as for the men, well maybe ignorance is bliss for some people but I'd prefer my rather crazy but somewhat enlightened (I hope) mind.

Vitaliorange · 13-12-2013 06:14AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's a bit rich don't you think? We're talking here about people whose only objective in life seems to revolve around taking advantage of people. How open minded does one need to be exactly to think that should be acceptable in society?

I think my criticism has been fair, and I think I've given you a fair shot in this thread. I've listened to what you had to say, I'm reading the book you recommended, I've watched the videos, what more should you expect of someone you think isn't keeping an open mind on the subject?

His exact line was (and it's quite a memorable one because I'm not fazed by a whole lot, but this was a whole new level of "What the fcuk?") -

"I like to rest my dong on a bootcamp weekend, so when one of my students gets laid on a bootcamp weekend, I'm like 'Yes! Yeah!', because I'm getting laid by proxy...".

He wasn't joking. That's the saddest part about it. Sad of course as in pathetic, not in the slightest bit upsetting though, but more a spectacle to be ridiculed.

Yes he was joking. Its called humour. Who says this is their life objective. Attracting women isn't taking advantage of women, neither is helping men attract women. In order to get good with women you need be able to give them a stimulating and enjoyable experience when chatting them up, its beneficial for women the more attractive men that there are.

Meeting women, getting to know them and having sex with them is lots of fun and enjoyable. I don't understand what you have against this. In life you should do things you enjoy. Do you believe a person who takes swimming lessons or piano lessons is childish? In all cases they are looking to improve at a particular skill set.

Or is it just proactively trying to improve with women.that you are against? If so why? Why should a man not try to improve?

Most men could use this advice, one of the best ways not to attract a woman is to try to impress her, instead a man should express himself genuinely and amuse himself making his own.fun the priority. Making a woman laugh at herself doesn't hurt either.

Czarcasm · 13-12-2013 12:01PM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Yes he was joking.

I looked at your reply last night and the above was all you had posted, and I thought to say "With a sparkling repartee and his limited repetoire such as it is, it's no wonder only a minority of people would find him attractive, whereas clearly the majority of people would find him and his ilk quite repulsive individuals", but then I thought "Ohh why bother, this is clearly going nowhere", so I'm glad you expanded on it at least, because like I said earlier- you're clearly articulate and capable when you want to be! I wouldn't be so quick to attribute that to PUA though, certainly not what I've seen of it over the last 20 years or so.

Its called humour. Who says this is their life objective. Attracting women isn't taking advantage of women, neither is helping men attract women. In order to get good with women you need be able to give them a stimulating and enjoyable experience when chatting them up, its beneficial for women the more attractive men that there are.

Let's call a spade a spade here. "Pick-Up Artists". The clue is in the misnomer. I'm loath to use the term "Artist", because there's no Art in what these guys do. You'll never put "I pick drunk young women outside the club" on your CV, it's not a talent, and most people genuinely won't find it particularly interesting or impressive. They're not attracting women, they approach women and try to convince these women that they are an attractive prospect. Attracting women means, yknow, the women come to you, not the other way round. I know of some women that would find these guys to be attractive individuals, but the same women find me attractive, so that's not saying a whole lot - they find most men attractive! I wouldn't say it was particularly beneficial for them as having known them a long time now, and despite my almost constant advice to raise their standards, they're still completely baffled by the fact they're still single! They genuinely don't feel too good about that, but they'll go out again tonight and repeat the same pattern of behaviour, and these are smart, attractive, intelligent women, but just, the minute a guy throws an eyeball at them - they're gone!

Meeting women, getting to know them and having sex with them is lots of fun and enjoyable. I don't understand what you have against this. In life you should do things you enjoy. Do you believe a person who takes swimming lessons or piano lessons is childish? In all cases they are looking to improve at a particular skill set.

I don't have anything at all against meeting women and having fun and enjoying sex, hell, I wouldn't even bother my arse saying you have to get to know them before you have sex because I believe you can never truly know anybody, and some of the best sex I've had has been with complete strangers (I'd tell anybody to protect themselves first and foremost though!).

Taking swimming or piano lessons though isn't even in the same ball park, the same league as approaching complete strangers with the intention of getting into their knickers. I can swim, and I can play piano, both skills that took years to master; getting into a girl's knickers? Five minutes or less, no skill involved, and not particularly difficult to master.

Or is it just proactively trying to improve with women.that you are against? If so why? Why should a man not try to improve?

I'm actually all for people improving their people skills, I actively try to do so myself in my everyday life, because believe it or not I'm actually quite reserved, almost cripplingly shy and ferociously introverted. Yet at a conference the other day, one of my colleagues remarked that "You worked that room like a two-bit whore!". A bit of an eyebrow raiser, but I knew what she meant. What she didn't see though, was that apart from the fact I was bricking it inside, what she also missed was that I was glad I didn't make it too obvious that I was totally smitten with one girl who was just all sorts of attractive! I mean she was magnetic!

Most men could use this advice, one of the best ways not to attract a woman is to try to impress her, instead a man should express himself genuinely and amuse himself making his own.fun the priority. Making a woman laugh at herself doesn't hurt either.

Most men couldn't use the sort of advice that the PUA ideology espouses, because it's like a completely foreign language or concept to them. Most people have natural people skills (hell we wouldn't have evolved otherwise!), but when I say a foreign language, I mean, I thought when you recommended that book, that it'd be a pamphlet, a short read, because I figured "How much can there really be to write about?", but tbh I'm having great difficulty reading it, because it really IS like a foreign language (and I'm good at languages, so it's not just my misunderstanding), all the pseudopsychology and the methodology and the whole artificially constructed concept of it. It says not to put women on pedestals, it says women are no different to men, but then the whole PUA ideology itself wouldn't exist if they weren't trying to convince men who lack people skills that women somehow need to be approached differently to men!

I think that's it! It's the way the PUA ideology contradicts itself! Yet there are a minority of men that buy into this almost cultish analytical stuff, because it resonates with them, giving them the "low-down" on women so to speak, "the secret", "the code", to "the female mind"...

I can think of better ways to blow $1,000, and better ways to spend a year of my life, than being fed a steady stream of guff on how to talk to people. Hell I could spend the next millenium and every cent I have in my piggy bank trying to figure people out, and I know I'd still only be scratching the surface! So for the unqualified PUA ideology to claim they know better than biologists, sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists; in fact they've got it down to an Art form - that's a pretty big boast.

Oh wait, they don't claim that, do they? Their legal team (the smarter people behind them) make sure to include the disclaimer that it's all just a bit of entertainment. The poor shmuck with no people skills will ignore that though, so desperate are they that they are seduced by what they see as the quick and easy solution to their more immediate "need" to get a woman, any woman, to notice them.

old hippy · 13-12-2013 01:39PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

The very least you could've done hippy would've been to quote the source of your plagarised passage, and it would've been nice in context too. The full passage is far too long to quote here, but the general gist goes something like so -

Source: "The Birth of Tragedy" by Freidrich Nietzsche.

In an attempt however to come off all God-like, you've merely managed to look very petty with no clue what you're actually talking about, but it sounded intellectual.

Now THAT'S the PUA methodology right there in a nutshell.

Not at all, I was waiting for an actual pseud to come along and loftily pass judgement. Mind you, on a topic such as this one, I didn't have to wait long at all. It seems to attract a certain sort from the pro and anti camp.

Next!

old hippy · 13-12-2013 01:43PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea but George Clooney could say all that and he'd still be better looking than you.

GC has got it all, hasn't he? Looks, charm and persistent rumours about his alleged sexuality. He's one of the few names that would have me watching a film.

I imagine he's never had to rely on the PUA method.

Wibbs · 13-12-2013 01:56PM

Pug160 wrote: »

Lots of different types of men are successful - I wasn't disputing that. But when I thought about the type of men I've seen who were able to attract pretty looking girls despite not looking great themselves - those types of guys were the first ones I thought of.

Oh I see what you mean alright P. Kaiser mentioned earlier about women having a spectrum of men they may find attractive. I'd agree there and that spectrum is much wider than in men as a general rule. Even when discussing a societal ideal of attractive/beautiful women's range is broader.

This makes good sense too as it's down to environmental context. EG a hypermasculine muscle guy has less cache in Silicon valley compared to a more introverted intellectual "nerd" type guy. In a rundown Moscow suburb the reverse would be more likely. It can be argued that women have driven male(and human) evolution far more than the other way around by selecting for different mates at different times and keeping variability in the mix.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I know of some women that would find these guys to be attractive individuals, but the same women find me attractive, so that's not saying a whole lot - they find most men attractive! I wouldn't say it was particularly beneficial for them as having known them a long time now, and despite my almost constant advice to raise their standards, they're still completely baffled by the fact they're still single! They genuinely don't feel too good about that, but they'll go out again tonight and repeat the same pattern of behaviour, and these are smart, attractive, intelligent women, but just, the minute a guy throws an eyeball at them - they're gone!

How do you mean CZ? Are these women who consistently go for eejits/players or are these women ones who have a long checklist that can almost never be filled so dismiss opportunities they might otherwise take and could work? The former can be a hard one to break out of. We all have some sort of template in our head of attractive/partner material. Some have "good" templates, some have unhealthy ones. The long checklist types in my experience usually face an uphill struggle, followed by a mid 30's panicked rush into matrimony.

It says not to put women on pedestals, it says women are no different to men, but then the whole PUA ideology itself wouldn't exist if they weren't trying to convince men who lack people skills that women somehow need to be approached differently to men!

Well from what I've gathered yes they say don't put women automatically on a pedestal however they also say women are different to men when it comes to dating/romance. As generalisations go, I'd broadly agree with both takes. Automatically putting women, or more to the point one woman on a pedestal before you're romantically involved is daft IMH. That's what leads to the unrequited "love" BS. I'd also say and it has been my observations over the years that while gender is soooooo way down the list of how individuals are, in the dating/mating game women and men take different approaches. This varies with culture of course, but even in modern liberal cultures there are general differences. Unless a man is excessively good looking, powerful, rich and women make the romantic/sexual overtures, in the majority of cases it's up to the man making the running. At least on the surface. I've even see this with women mates. With me as an actual friend they often deal with me very differently than they deal with a romantic partner. With a couple I've known the difference is chalk and cheese. As a mate you couldn't ask for a better, more supportive and involved one, but as a romantic partner? Jesus. Headmelting time.

Wibbs · 13-12-2013 01:58PM

old hippy wrote: »

I imagine he's never had to rely on the PUA method.

true, though very handsome men with riches and fame as sideorders flip the balance the other way. They're the equivalent of a gorgeous 22 year old babe, 90% of the time everyone else runs to them.

old hippy · 13-12-2013 02:01PM

Wibbs wrote: »

true, though very handsome men with riches and fame as sideorders flip the balance the other way. They're the equivalent of a gorgeous 22 year old babe, 90% of the time everyone else runs to them.

I must reluctantly agree. I had women and men flirting with me outrageously after hearing my voice on the radio. Of course, I didn't accept any offers of meeting - that would have been shallow and unethical. Anyways, how disappointed they would have been to see my ugly mug

Czarcasm · 13-12-2013 04:48PM

Wibbs wrote: »

How do you mean CZ? Are these women who consistently go for eejits/players or are these women ones who have a long checklist that can almost never be filled so dismiss opportunities they might otherwise take and could work? The former can be a hard one to break out of. We all have some sort of template in our head of attractive/partner material. Some have "good" templates, some have unhealthy ones. The long checklist types in my experience usually face an uphill struggle, followed by a mid 30's panicked rush into matrimony.

That's it right there Wibbs. I mean, they're great girls, and y'know the way I have my particular type that I'd find attractive, these girls would be well fitting of the more general concensus of what's attractive. Actually the same girl that was with me the other day, I'd a couple of lads (and I would consider these guys were very good looking in all fairness) asking me what was the story there, I mean, she's an attractive girl, but I personally wouldn't be climbing over ditches, but when I was telling her about the girl I was smitten with, I was trying to describe her and my colleague goes - "Oh you mean the big girl? Yeah, she was lovely"... I thought "Well, I suppose that's one way of putting it!" :pac:

But yeah, I can definitely see what you're saying about it being a hard habit to break with those girls, I've known them anywhere between about five and ten years, and none of them have been in relationships that lasted longer than a couple of weeks. I think our friendzone, or rather the "bonkzone" as you once put it, with me, is the longest relationship they've had with someone of the opposite sex!

Well from what I've gathered yes they say don't put women automatically on a pedestal however they also say women are different to men when it comes to dating/romance. As generalisations go, I'd broadly agree with both takes. Automatically putting women, or more to the point one woman on a pedestal before you're romantically involved is daft IMH. That's what leads to the unrequited "love" BS. I'd also say and it has been my observations over the years that while gender is soooooo way down the list of how individuals are, in the dating/mating game women and men take different approaches. This varies with culture of course, but even in modern liberal cultures there are general differences. Unless a man is excessively good looking, powerful, rich and women make the romantic/sexual overtures, in the majority of cases it's up to the man making the running. At least on the surface. I've even see this with women mates. With me as an actual friend they often deal with me very differently than they deal with a romantic partner. With a couple I've known the difference is chalk and cheese. As a mate you couldn't ask for a better, more supportive and involved one, but as a romantic partner? Jesus. Headmelting time.

Well what I understood by the use of the phrase "put women on a pedestal" is implying that there's a difference between men and women, and I thought, "That's common sense to say there's no difference between men and women, good advice", but then the whole PUA ideology goes on to make like there's some "secret code" that has to be cracked, or the newest one "Pandora's box", which IMO is a terrible title for a PUA methodology that makes me wonder if they've ever actually read Greek mythology! Head melt is feckin' right!

The Game By Neil strauss

Comments