The Game By Neil strauss

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

They are willing partners.

You're the dote who told us 'if she stays stop at any time, just go back one or two steps'

When a woman asks you to stop, you can put a question mark over her willingness.

Pen.Island wrote: »

So is it just PUAs who use PUArtistry to get the ride that are bad or are all lads who want the ride bad too?

God, do you never hear yourself in your own head and cringe at terms like PUA artistry*?

Lads who want the ride and are not using manipulative techniques to get it are at least honest. Pua 'artists' aren't.

*snigger/cringe combo*

Pen.Island

Candie wrote: »

You're the dote who told us 'if she stays stop at any time, just go back one or two steps'

When a woman asks you to stop, you can put a question mark over her willingness.

God, do you never hear yourself in your own head and cringe at terms like PUA artistry*?

Lads who want the ride and are not using manipulative techniques to get it are at least honest. Pua 'artists' aren't.

*snigger/cringe combo*

So very naive.

Femme_Fatale

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Not that I condone the PUA stuff, but how exactly are the women been 'fooled' into having sex? It still takes two to tango.

The guy leading her into believing he sees something with her, pretending to be interested in all the same stuff as her and fascinated by her... when he just wants to blow his load and have nothing to do with her anymore.

Czarcasm

Pen.Island wrote: »

So very naive.

Pot? Meet Kettle.

Pen.Island wrote: »

So very naive.

So I'd be naive for believing someone being upfront about what he wants, but somehow not naive for falling for all the rote learned faux 'charm' of the manipulative PUA.

You're a little confused there Pen.

Legs.Eleven

Candie wrote: »

Being good with women implies much more than just gaining access to a (relatively) unresisting vagina.

Which is the raison d'etre of PUA.

The idea that they'd class themselves as being "good with women" is hilarious.

Daveysil15

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The guy leading her into believing he sees something with her, pretending to be interested in all the same stuff as her and fascinated by her... when he just wants to blow his load and have nothing to do with her anymore.

Well as I said earlier, its not just PUA's that do that. Plus I think a woman would have to be really naïve to fall for that, and I couldn't see it been a typical scenario on a night out. How often do common interests get discussed prior to a ONS? The woman still needs to be attracted to him in the first place before she sleeps with him anyway, so I wouldn't see it as her been fooled.

Legs.Eleven

I wonder how it would be viewed if a multi-million dollar industry existed that trained women with crap social skills to use their "charms" to extract money or even free drinks out of men?

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I wonder how it would be viewed if a multi-million dollar industry existed that trained women with crap social skills to use their "charms" to extract money out of men?

Lock them up, the slutty, manipulative, cold hearted bitches, but only after burning down their houses and kicking their dogs!

Followed by six million thanks.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I wonder how it would be viewed if a multi-million dollar industry existed that trained women with crap social skills to use their "charms" to extract money or even free drinks out of men?

umm.. makeup industry, hello?

jesus christ, if you're this offended by a bunch of sad hack retards pissing stupid chat up lines in your ear as some massive social deception then at least be consistent and go out plain faced without any push up bras or leg shaping high heel shoes.

judge_dredd

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yup. A guy having casual sex with various women is fine once he's straight with them (and vice versa) that it's only sex and they're on the same page. A guy "charming" (i.e. manipulating) a woman into bed by using fake lines and tactics is not fine, and that is what womanising is. I loathe womanisers.

They are manipulated and fooled though.

genuine question , what do you mean by " being straight with them " ?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

umm.. makeup industry, hello?

jesus christ, if you're this offended by a bunch of sad hack retards pissing stupid chat up lines in your ear as some massive social deception then at least be consistent and go out plain faced without any push up bras or leg shaping high heel shoes.

So he lies with words and she lies with looks?

This post has convinced me that the only honest interactions between men and women take place when the man is blind and the woman is deaf.

Legs.Eleven

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

umm.. makeup industry, hello?

jesus christ, if you're this offended by a bunch of sad hack retards pissing stupid chat up lines in your ear as some massive social deception then at least be consistent and go out plain faced without any push up bras or leg shaping high heel shoes.

Oh good jaysus.....

The make up industry trains (actively trains!) women to extract drinks and money from men. I've heard it all now.

Edit: I go out everyday like that. What's your point? And I've never been trained to extract money or drinks from men by anyone.

Daveysil15

Candie wrote: »

This post has convinced me that the only honest interactions between men and women take place when the man is blind and the woman is deaf.

See no evil, hear no evil?

Wibbs

Czarcasm wrote: »

Y'know smurgen you could just cut contact with the girl without feeling the need to be an arse about it.

I'd agree CZ, though sometimes one has to fight fire with fire for one's own sake in order to move on. Clearly she's been a complete arse about things and for quite a while. TBH his response while reactionary is far less a reactionary response than hers over time. And if it makes it easier to disengage from an unhealthy person I say play ball.

Pen.Island wrote:

So very naive.

I'd tend to agree with this TBH. There is often bullshyte aplenty going on in "normal" relationship starts. Both parties may choose to ignore it if they're compatible, but it's often present.

Daveysil15 wrote:

Not that I condone the PUA stuff, but how exactly are the women been 'fooled' into having sex? It still takes two to tango.

I'd tend to agree with this too. IMHO it's quite a sexist idea, that women are somehow too easily led and can't make up their own mind and are agents for predatory men and need to be protected from that. I dunno, the vast majority of women I've known are well fcuking ahead of that curve. Even more clued in than most men I've known. For me it smacks waaaay too much of women=victim, which is utter bollocks on a few levels and ironically propagates very old misogynistic ideas of women as weak people who aren't agents of their own lives and puts responsibility onto men, who are clearly always active agents of their lives. Yea right. Eh no. Utter bollocks. For me, such women who believe that should be best off served in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant listening to men. Me I prefer the women in the living room, saying "WTF did you just say? That sounds well bogus and here's why". Luckily I've found most women fall into the latter "Im a person, just like any other, not some gender construct of sexist thought of weak people on either side of the gender issue".

osarusan

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The guy leading her into believing he sees something with her, pretending to be interested in all the same stuff as her and fascinated by her... when he just wants to blow his load and have nothing to do with her anymore.

This is hardly limited to guys who are reading up on PUA though. This is done by loads of guys and girls who end up with someone on a night out.

Fox_In_Socks

I love this thread.

judge_dredd

Candie wrote: »

So he lies with words and she lies with looks?

This post has convinced me that the only honest interactions between men and women take place when the man is blind and the woman is deaf.

in reality if a woman is attracted to a guy strongly , she will overlook the obvious fact that he is blowing smoke up her ass while charming her

the notion that a guy would achieve more by turning in a mandela style speech of integrity and decency is pure idealogy and lacking in common sense

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'd say to them forget the cheesy chat up shìte, women aren't a foreign species, they're human beings, just the same as men are. Some of them are just as socially inept as some men are.

Actually, how would YOU react if a woman approached you with a Tyler Durden special?

Do you think approaching women is inherently cheesy?

Here's an idea - if the objective is to attract women, then how about making yourself attractive to women, so that they approach you instead of you doing all that cringeworthy dancing bear hidden naggin nonsense?

If you walk over to a woman with the intention to flirt and possibly move things forward that is chatting up a woman. Its a skill all men should seek to be good at.

Candie wrote: »

You're the dote who told us 'if she stays stop at any time, just go back one or two steps'

When a woman asks you to stop, you can put a question mark over her willingness.

God, do you never hear yourself in your own head and cringe at terms like PUA artistry*?

Lads who want the ride and are not using manipulative techniques to get it are at least honest. Pua 'artists' aren't.

*snigger/cringe combo*

I see you're deploying your own negs there. Ie dote.

I assume you have no problem with men negging women.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You know what else works? Being yourself and not hiding behind a system.

I would say I approached a woman, yes. I wouldn't speak of 'good approaches' or 'approach methods' and the like though.

The majority of PUA advice these days advises you to be your genuine self rather than trying to impress women. By not trying to impress women you ironically enough impress women.

Candie wrote: »

Being good with women implies much more than just gaining access to a (relatively) unresisting vagina.

Which is the raison d'etre of PUA.

To improve a man's ability to attract women, whether he wants casual sex, threesomes or stunning girlfriend is up to the individual.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yup. A guy having casual sex with various women is fine once he's straight with them (and vice versa) that it's only sex and they're on the same page.

I'm always straight with my women.

A guy "charming" (i.e. manipulating) a woman into bed by using fake lines and tactics is not fine, and that is what womanising is. I loathe womanisers.

And how many husbands turned out to be what their wives thought they were when they first met?

They are manipulated and fooled though.

Is there any relationship between any human beings that does not in some way involve manipulation and deceit?

Czarcasm

Vitaliorange wrote: »

If you walk over to a woman with the intention to flirt and possibly move things forward that is chatting up a woman. Its a skill all men should seek to be good at.

There's no skill involved in attraction, either you are or you aren't. You can make yourself more attractive by learning new skills, such as playing the piano, or actually this morning I surprised a girl with my present wrapping prowess!

Blew her mind when I informed her I was also an accomplished pheasant plucker when I had grown up in the country and I would probably knit my wife a scarf just as a small present for Christmas...

Suddenly, to her, I was an interesting person.

Now, you come along with your makey uppy sign language and your ground coffee crap and see how long you'll hold a girl's interest; in fact, see how long you hold anyone's interest...

Not very long.

Candie wrote: »

You're the dote who told us 'if she stays stop at any time, just go back one or two steps'

Every man advances, tactically retreats, advances, tactically retreats and so on. This might happen in one date or over the course of a few dates.
The woman who was cool with a man when he first approached is the same woman who is comfortable to lie stark naked in bed with him.

When a woman asks you to stop, you can put a question mark over her willingness.

Which is why you rewind the tape and go a bitter further the next time.

Observe this scene from Groundhog Day.

God, do you never hear yourself in your own head and cringe at terms like PUA artistry*?

No.

Lads who want the ride and are not using manipulative techniques to get it are at least honest. Pua 'artists' aren't.

Men who do not get the ride = men who do not use manipulative techniques.

*snigger/cringe combo*

When women do that they are attracted to me.

Femme_Fatale

Daveysil15 wrote: »

The woman still needs to be attracted to him in the first place before she sleeps with him anyway, so I wouldn't see it as her been fooled.

What I mean by "fooled" is the leading the person on into thinking they're interested in more than sex.

osarusan wrote: »

This is hardly limited to guys who are reading up on PUA though. This is done by loads of guys and girls who end up with someone on a night out.

I don't disagree - I was responding to the person who asked what's the problem with womanising, which I know isn't just a PUA thing.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

I'm always straight with my women.

"Your"?

And how many husbands turned out to be what their wives thought they were when they first met?

Um... I dunno. Most of them? The world isn't the warped view you have of it though.

Is there any relationship between any human beings that does not in some way involve manipulation and deceit?

Yes.

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's no skill involved in attraction, either you are or you aren't. You can make yourself more attractive by learning new skills, such as playing the piano, or actually this morning I surprised a girl with my present wrapping prowess!

Blew her mind when I informed her I was also an accomplished pheasant plucker when I had grown up in the country and I would probably knit my wife a scarf just as a small present for Christmas...

Suddenly, to her, I was an interesting person.

Now, you come along with your makey uppy sign language and your ground coffee crap and see how long you'll hold a girl's interest; in fact, see how long you hold anyone's interest...

Not very long.

You directly contradicted yourself.

You used skills to impress a woman and you gave her a story that blew her mind.

You were using PUA techniques.

This is precisely what men who are bad with women want to learn.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

"Your"?

Yes.

Um... I dunno. Most of them? The world isn't the warped view you have of it though.

Try me.

Yes.

Try me.:D

This is such fun!

RDM_83 again

Candie wrote: »

Being good with women implies much more than just gaining access to a (relatively) unresisting vagina.

Which is the raison d'etre of PUA.

Out of curiosity what does the phrase good with woman mean to you?

Because one way of reading what your saying that some one who is good with woman is some one who gains access to resisting vaginas :pac:

This is actually a serious question though because I am sure there is probably a difference in how men and woman would view that phrase.

Having lots of one night stands with "easy/easily manipulated" girls = good with woman
Having affairs and encounters with attached/unavailable woman = good with woman
Being able to have a serious relationship for more than a few weeks or months = good with woman
Having lots of female friends = good with woman