The Game By Neil strauss

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

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

Yes there are, plenty, and if your year in your username is anything to go by, you'll hopefully understand this when you're older and you wise up some small bit. I don't hold out much hope for you though tbh, not that that will mean anything to you right now.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

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.

Don't tar all men with your toilet brush.

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

Utter shìte, tbh, no nice way of saying it. Most men will never have to use manipulative techniques to attract women. On the other hand, men who have nothing going for them will resort to manipulation and coercion in an attempt to gain what they feel they are entitled to without offering anything in return.

Selfish, immature bastards don't be long being found out for what they are, and if a girl doesn't smell desperation off them immediately, she doesn't be long copping on that the guy is all mouth and nothing but a waste of her time.

bluewolf wrote: »

The Tao of Steve is to womanizers like Jesus of Nazareth is to Christians.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

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.

Balaclava that's called normal conversation. We were wrapping presents, not resurrecting the Titanic, so of course we weren't just sitting there in silence. I learned lots of interesting things about her too like all the travelling abroad she'd done and the countries she'd visited, her education, her previous employment...

I found her to be a very interesting person with a cracking sense of humour! Those are the things that make a person attractive!

Czarcasm wrote: »

Most men will never have to use manipulative techniques to attract women.

Depends on what you mean by 'manipulative', surely?

You've never agreed with a girl (or anybody, for that matter) that, say, a song she liked was indeed pretty good, when in fact you thought it was crap?

Or that her new hairstyle looked lovely, when in fact you couldn't really see how it was different from the old one?

Or agreed that her workmate did indeed sound like a bitch, when in fact her workmate didn't seem to have done anything wrong?

We all do these kinds of things every day, in order to maintain or improve relationships with others. We tell people what they want to hear and don't tell them what they don't want to hear. We do it when we're on a night out as well.

Whether you consider that manipulation or not, I don't know.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again it's only my experience. Even when hanging out say after a night out, most of the time (with my mates) the lads will be saying things like "God X was looking incredible last night" (X being someone we all know)

Us men tend to be superficial bastards, we base a hell of a lot on looks and physical characteristics, Big boobs, long legs, nice round arse the stereotypical image, other men like very thin women, hardly any boobs at all, no arse, but we're very led by what we are physically attracted to.

whereas the girls would be more like "Who was that lad in the queue behind us? Holy sh!t"

je ne sais quoi is a term used far more by women than men, "there's just something about him".

osarusan wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by 'manipulative', surely?

You've never agreed with a girl (or anybody, for that matter) that, say, a song she liked was indeed pretty good, when in fact you thought it was crap?

Nope. If her taste in music, art, literature was different from mine, that would just give us more to talk about. If I thought something was crap, I'd say it was crap, and I would expect no less of her if she disagreed with my taste in music, art or literature.

Or that her new hairstyle looked lovely, when in fact you couldn't really see how it was different from the old one?

Nope, I'd tell her straight up I couldn't see any difference, and again I'd expect the same honesty in return.

Or agreed that her workmate did indeed sound like a bitch, when in fact her workmate didn't seem to have done anything wrong?

Bet you can guess by now- I'd tell her straight up that I disagreed with her point of view, and I'd point out to her where she was mistaken.

We all do these kinds of things every day, in order to maintain or improve relationships with others. We tell people what they want to hear and don't tell them what they don't want to hear. We do it when we're on a night out as well.

"We" don't osarusan, I'm very straight up with people if they ask for my opinion. They may sometimes take offence to my opinion or disagree with my opinion, as is their right to do so, and if I lose a potential friendship for that, then it really wasn't going to get any better when it was a friendship where we couldn't be honest with each other.

Whether you consider that manipulation or not, I don't know.

I do consider it manipulation, and I think it's completely unnecessary. I set high standards for myself, and I expect no less of those around me. If I expect high standards of those around me, then I'd better be prepared to lead by example. That doesn't happen when you're playing mind games with each other and manipulating other people to your own advantage.

I'm sure I'm not the only person that has this philosophy, and in fact it frustrates my wife and my friends no end, and she often does indeed ask me how the hell do I have any friends!

She mentioned before that she could never work with me because I'm an unconscionable bastard (That's her nice way of saying I'm very determined and very focussed when I'm working), but then she knows me better than most people given the fact that she's put up with my shìt for the last 17 years, and I have friends that have known me and stood by me even longer, who I've never had to manipulate or coerce with insidious, immature and childish nonsense.

Actually it really is childish, because when my nine year old tries to manipulate his mother so he can go ice skating or whatever, I'll pull him up on it, and tell him it's the height of disrespect to do that to another person and if you want something, you earn it, because trying to pull a fast one on anybody is neither smart nor clever, it's just a crappy way to treat another human being.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Nope. If her taste in music, art, literature was different from mine, that would just give us more to talk about. If I thought something was crap, I'd say it was crap, and I would expect no less of her if she disagreed with my taste in music, art or literature.

Nope, I'd tell her straight up I couldn't see any difference, and again I'd expect the same honesty in return.

Bet you can guess by now- I'd tell her straight up that I disagreed with her point of view, and I'd point out to her where she was mistaken.

"We" don't osarusan, I'm very straight up with people if they ask for my opinion. They may sometimes take offence to my opinion or disagree with my opinion, as is their right to do so, and if I lose a potential friendship for that, then it really wasn't going to get any better when it was a friendship where we couldn't be honest with each other.

There's a post of yours on this very thread, maybe a day old, in which you say that a woman could have more faces than mount Rushmore, yet you'd not call her on it. How do you reconcile that post with this one?

Either way, there are pleny of people who do the kind of things I mentioned.

I think that on this thread there has been a 'sanitising' or 'purifying' of non-PUA encounters, to emphasise the gap between PUA and 'normal.

osarusan wrote: »

There's a post of yours on this very thread, maybe a day old, in which you say that a woman could have more faces than mount Rushmore, yet you'd not call her on it. How do you reconcile that post with this one?

Easily actually -

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm very straight up with people if they ask for my opinion. They may sometimes take offence to my opinion or disagree with my opinion, as is their right to do so, and if I lose a potential friendship for that, then it really wasn't going to get any better when it was a friendship where we couldn't be honest with each other.

If the girl herself asked me for my opinion, then I'd tell her straight out I think she's a two-faced so and so, and chances are she'd either change her behaviour, or she'd very quickly fall out with me anyway. I don't fall out with people and I can deal with a tremendous amount of shìte, but I can't control people's decisions to fall out with me when they find they cannot manipulate me. I'm ok with saying 'NO' to people though without giving them a reason why.

Either way, there are pleny of people who do the kind of things I mentioned.

There are indeed, but there are plenty more that don't, and they lead a far more fulfilled life because of it, and they have a far more loyal and trusted circle of friends because of it, and when people wonder why they manage to maintain the friendships they do, and for as long as they do, and what makes them attractive, it's because they respect people and they don't feel a need to fcuk people over to get what they want.

I think that on this thread there has been a 'sanitising' or 'purifying' of non-PUA encounters, to emphasise the gap between PUA and 'normal.

Nope, there has been a concerted effort by PUA advocates to normalise their behaviour in the same class as natural social interaction, when by it's very definition, PUA is anything BUT the same class as natural or normal. It's just scummy behaviour, nothing classy, sophisticated nor scientific about it.

Vitaliorange

Whats manipulation and social skills often overlap.

For example, women often touch someone on the arm when asking for a favour. This makes it more likely to get compliance. I view that as good social skills.

They subconciously or consciously understand a rule of human behaviour.

If you give someone a directive while simultaneously giving value it is more likely you will get compliance.

Touching someone on the arm usually gives value as it feels good. Ultimately human social interaction is about exchanging value.

So if you want to get good with women you need to learn how to give them value. It is beneficial for women when more men learn how to give value to women. You give value to women by being masculine, fun, funny, dominant, assertive and emotionally engaging. This is why it's good to tease women and make playful "push pull" type comments. It is emotionally stimulating, something women thrive on.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

Us men tend to be superficial bastards, we base a hell of a lot on looks and physical characteristics, Big boobs, long legs, nice round arse the stereotypical image, other men like very thin women, hardly any boobs at all, no arse, but we're very led by what we are physically attracted to.

je ne sais quoi is a term used far more by women than men, "there's just something about him".

I have to say K, I don't buy this that much. There is something to it, but women are also visual creatures when it comes to attraction. In sexual arousal they can even be more visual than men. Enough studies have shown this(eye tracking software and the like). What they also seem to show is men looking at bodily features are more conscious of doing so, whereas with women it's a more unconscious thing. That's where the there's something about him comes from. Same with "love at first sight". A subconscious checklist gets enough boxes ticked and it becomes a conscious thought that seemingly comes from nowhere. Logically love at first sight is a nonsense. It has to be a physical attraction. The term itself gives the game away. In everyday encounters I mean, both genders will utter a phwoooar looking at pinups.

I'll try and dig up a few links. It's fascinating stuff.

I don't buy the men are superficial stuff either. An oft rehashed trope, just like "ah men never grow up" and all that*. Historically romance and poetry and symphonies etc were almost entirely a male preserve. Women were more consumers, not producers of it. Even today where far more women are producers of romance etc, what is the gender ratio of classic love songs that will last?

*how long would it take for a storm to develop if one was to suggest that women were superficial creatures, led by their genitals, who never grow up?

K-9 wrote: »

Us men tend to be superficial bastards, we base a hell of a lot on looks and physical characteristics, Big boobs, long legs, nice round arse the stereotypical image, other men like very thin women, hardly any boobs at all, no arse, but we're very led by what we are physically attracted to.

Men are hardwired by evolution to chose particular physical characteristics in a sexual partner.
A woman with large breasts, athletic legs, wide hips, nice round arse etc. is built for motherhood. I would imagine a woman who is skinny would attractive to other men because long ago human beings probably had to move long distances without much food and athleticism was more important in a mate. Overtime particular physical characteristics have favored survival and others have not. Women who are heavily muscular, hairy, have strong jaws and other "masculine" features are less likely to find a sexual partner and less likely to pass on their genes.
Humans are the only species of ape with swollen female breasts.
There is surely a evolutionary reason for that.

Calling men "bastards" for only doing what is natural is ridiculous.

Women are also hardwired to choose particular characteristics in males.
Physically women prefer men with broad shoulders, muscular arms and legs, chest, flat stomach, narrow waist and a small firm buttocks.
A man with a high forehead, symmetrical features, strong cheekbones and jaw is considered handsome.
This is because a man with this kind of physique is more likely to be a better hunter or farmer and provider from her and her children.
Women also prize confidence, intelligence, a good sense of humor and resourcefulness.
These were all traits which are necessary for survival thousands of years ago when our ancestors lived in the African plains.

Human beings are probably little changed from prehistoric times only that we no longer roam from place to place in bands of hunter gathers or work the land and instead live in vast technologically advanced cities.

We are basically captives in a human zoo.

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Whats manipulation and social skills often overlap.

For example, women often touch someone on the arm when asking for a favour. This makes it more likely to get compliance. I view that as good social skills.

They subconciously or consciously understand a rule of human behaviour.

If you give someone a directive while simultaneously giving value it is more likely you will get compliance.

Touching someone on the arm usually gives value as it feels good. Ultimately human social interaction is about exchanging value.

That's an assumption Vitali that could easily land you in all sorts of trouble. Not everybody feels comfortable with their personal space being invaded, and even less so when somebody tries to touch them unexpectedly.

So if you want to get good with women you need to learn how to give them value. It is beneficial for women when more men learn how to give value to women. You give value to women by being masculine, fun, funny, dominant, assertive and emotionally engaging. This is why it's good to tease women and make playful "push pull" type comments. It is emotionally stimulating, something women thrive on.

You'll find people thrive a lot more on respect than they do on manipulation. If you want to engage with anybody, the first thing you do is treat them with respect, forget the trying to manipulate them and being all touchy feely and fake about it. Improving yourself makes you more attractive to people because you're leading by example. That way you don't have to bother trying to be funny and dominant and assertive and all the rest of it, because most intelligent people can smell fake a mile away, and that's why PUA only works for socially inept men to attract socially inept women.

A girl can be incredibly attractive physically and still be socially inept, shy, or withdrawn, in the very same way as a guy can be socially inept, shy or withdrawn. In the very same way as socially inept guys are only thinking about what THEY want and the bare minimum they have to do to get it, socially inept women aren't that far off either.

The way to overcome that is to become aware of other people's needs outside your own, and to be generous with your time and being able to give without expecting anything in return.

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's an assumption Vitali that could easily land you in all sorts of trouble. Not everybody feels comfortable with their personal space being invaded, and even less so when somebody tries to touch them unexpectedly.

Have you seen women talk to each other? They touch each other unconsciously all the time. When a man and a woman who are attracted to each other they signal to each other physically and verbally and through touch. They look into each other's eyes, they smiles and blush, a woman plays with her hair, keeps crossing and recrossing her legs, the man stands up straight or sits up straight, pushes out his chest and tucks in his stomach and they mirror each other when eating or drinking by putting a morsel of food or a sip of wine in their mouth at the same time.

When a PUA starts deliberately mirroring a woman's body language and takes note of how her body language indicates attraction he can use this to build attraction and comfort. He also tailors what he says to have the maximum emotional impact.

You'll find people thrive a lot more on respect than they do on manipulation. If you want to engage with anybody, the first thing you do is treat them with respect, forget the trying to manipulate them and being all touchy feely and fake about it.

So marketeers, sales people, managers, politicians, clergy, entertainers and many other people are wasting their time?

All these careers depend on tried and tested techniques to seduce people into believing or saying or doing what they want them to.

Improving yourself makes you more attractive to people because you're leading by example. That way you don't have to bother trying to be funny and dominant and assertive and all the rest of it, because most intelligent people can smell fake a mile away, and that's why PUA only works for socially inept men to attract socially inept women.

People obviously cannot tell the difference between what is fake and what is real. Otherwise there would be no religion, no superstition, no fraud, no politicians, no magicians and no show biz.

A girl can be incredibly attractive physically and still be socially inept, shy, or withdrawn, in the very same way as a guy can be socially inept, shy or withdrawn. In the very same way as socially inept guys are only thinking about what THEY want and the bare minimum they have to do to get it, socially inept women aren't that far off either.

Quite clearly men who are socially inept have a natural disadvantage compared to women who are socially inept.
Men who are socially inept are less likely to find a mate while women who are physically attractive are likely to have no problem getting male attention.
That is the fundamental difference between the sexes when it comes to human courtship.

The way to overcome that is to become aware of other people's needs outside your own, and to be generous with your time and being able to give without expecting anything in return.

Human beings are clearly hardwired for quid pro quo.
Every human interaction is an exchange and an attempt to establish oneself within the pecking order.
Otherwise we would not have social classes, hierarchical organisation, leaders and followers, sport, business, economies, nations and empires and wars.

Your conception of human nature is utterly wrong and utterly naive.

Wibbs

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Human beings are probably little changed from prehistoric times.

Untrue. There have been more genetic changes in the human genome in the last 10,000 years than there was in the previous 50,000. We are not "cavemen" any more. The environments have changed and have created selective pressures and we have adapted to them. Take an obvious one like diet. A prehistoric European would have been a severely lactose intolerant coeliac(it's but one reason why the so called Paleo diet is a nonsense). We're only beginning to scratch the surface of these changes and what they may mean.

Wibbs wrote: »

Untrue. There have been more genetic changes in the human genome in the last 10,000 years than there was in the previous 50,000. We are not "cavemen" any more. The environments have changed and have created selective pressures and we have adapted to them. Take an obvious one like diet. A prehistoric European would have been a severely lactose intolerant coeliac(it's but one reason why the so called Paleo diet is a nonsense). We're only beginning to scratch the surface of these changes and what they may mean.

However there are not as yet dramatic genetic differences.

Maybe if modern living continues for another 100,000 years we may see dramatic changes but take the infant child of bushmen or a headhunter tribe whose lifestyles have changed little since the stone age and transplant that child to a European or American city and they will have little difficulty at all in adapting to modern life.
The popularity of sports is an obvious throwback to primitive warfare.
The television is a substitute for sitting around the camp fire.
Criminal behavior or the activities of law enforcement agencies or the cut and thrust of the modern workplace are a continuation of hunting.
Even on facebook individuals have an online community of roughly 200 to 300 people which was roughly the size of a band of hunter gatherers.
Tribal people have as equally sophisticated religion, art, literature and music as modern 21st century urban dwellers.
The nuts and bolts of human beings have changed little in thousands of years.

Basic human sexual behavior is the same in all times and all places.

There is the same progression from attraction, to comfort and to seduction.

There are different languages and cultures and taboos and so on but men and women interact in the same way everywhere.

Vitaliorange

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's an assumption Vitali that could easily land you in all sorts of trouble. Not everybody feels comfortable with their personal space being invaded, and even less so when somebody tries to touch them unexpectedly.

You'll find people thrive a lot more on respect than they do on manipulation. If you want to engage with anybody, the first thing you do is treat them with respect, forget the trying to manipulate them and being all touchy feely and fake about it. Improving yourself makes you more attractive to people because you're leading by example. That way you don't have to bother trying to be funny and dominant and assertive and all the rest of it, because most intelligent people can smell fake a mile away, and that's why PUA only works for socially inept men to attract socially inept women.

A girl can be incredibly attractive physically and still be socially inept, shy, or withdrawn, in the very same way as a guy can be socially inept, shy or withdrawn. In the very same way as socially inept guys are only thinking about what THEY want and the bare minimum they have to do to get it, socially inept women aren't that far off either.

The way to overcome that is to become aware of other people's needs outside your own, and to be generous with your time and being able to give without expecting anything in return.

When you adjust your mindset you bring out your natural, dominant, funny charismatic personality, there is nothing fake about it, it actually makes you more genuine. People are drawn towards those who don't have a filter whereby they try to do and say things that are "good enough". A charismatic person's outer persona is usually very close to their true personality relatively speaking. They are much more likely to say what they actually think.

Are you saying women who touch people on the arm when asking for favours are manipulative?

[Deleted User]

Closed for review

[Deleted User]

Mod

Wellllll that was mind numbing but not as bad as the first page suggested it might be.

Apologies for the day in re opening it, and apologies for the delay in modding it, it slipped under the radar I'm afraid.

Vitaliorange re reg troll; banned

balaclava1991 do not post in this thread again.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

Us men tend to be superficial bastards, we base a hell of a lot on looks and physical characteristics

Just further on this; These couple of studies show the genders average out about the same on visual stimuli. Though there are differences in how these may be processed.

Just a snippet from one of the links:

"Women are worse oglers than men, a new study shows. Contrary to the widely held belief that women are less interested than men in visual sexual stimuli, researchers using an eye-tracking device found it was the ladies that had the roving glances.

Heterosexual men and women in the study were shown sexy photographs of a person of the opposite gender while their roaming eyes were monitored. Men, it turned out, kept their eyes coyly on the women's faces for far longer than the women did. Women's eyes flickered downwards from the face first, although they both looked at genitals comparably, the researchers say.

Men were more likely than women to first look at a woman's face before other parts of the body, and women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than did the males."

Yep lads, she's checking out your package and if you're not packing heat, may I respectfully suggest the addition of a rolled up sock? Well if wonderbras are OK, then it's all fair in love and war.

Women tend to be turned on by more varieties of sexual imagery than men, though may consciously report less. Could be a learned social/cultural thang. Maybe a response to the don't want to be seen as a "slut" guff.

Women tend to be less obvious about it though. Women tend to have better peripheral vision than men(better colour vision too), so maybe they can take more in on a sideways glance, whereas men might appear more obvious, hence we assume that men are the oglers? I've seen that with women mates. Clearly taking a good look at a potential bloke, but he's not spotting it. I am cos I'm watching her when he's not. More than once I've jokingly said "jayzuz, should I go and leave you in peace to bite his arse".

The male/cultural notion that men are the pursuers, the hunters of luurve might be part of it too, leading us to believe that the "innocent" ladies are... well innocent of such base feelings. Yea right.

I've said it before hereabouts, but I personally believe, contrary to popular and going on past experiences and observations that just as many if not more young women than young men are led by their genitals(older men and women usually learn to temper that). Even ending up in bad relationships because of it(actually this kinda thing is seen more in bad relationships IME). However they don't tend to compartmentalise it as much as men who will more happily admit they were led by their little head. Maybe because it's more socially acceptable for them to do so?

Legs.Eleven

There's no one to bleedin' debate against now! :mad::):P

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

There's no one to bleedin' debate against now! :mad::):P

I had this prepared earlier, and while Balaclava is gone now, I know he's not the only person that believes in the whole "hard wired evolution" theory, so I may as well just put it out there anyway:

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Have you seen women talk to each other? They touch each other unconsciously all the time. When a man and a woman who are attracted to each other they signal to each other physically and verbally and through touch. They look into each other's eyes, they smiles and blush, a woman plays with her hair, keeps crossing and recrossing her legs, the man stands up straight or sits up straight, pushes out his chest and tucks in his stomach and they mirror each other when eating or drinking by putting a morsel of food or a sip of wine in their mouth at the same time.

I've observed plenty of social interactions, and the only thing I can say for certain is that not all of the above applies to all people. Individuals react very differently to each other in given social interactions based on a whole host of variables, and you'll wreck your brain if you think about this stuff too much. I find telling someone straight up that you find them attractive has been far more effective than all that pussyfooting around them and playacting like a peacock nonsense.

When a PUA starts deliberately mirroring a woman's body language and takes note of how her body language indicates attraction he can use this to build attraction and comfort. He also tailors what he says to have the maximum emotional impact.

I tend not to read into people that much tbh, so unless they come straight out and tell me, I never take anything for granted. Playing with their hair could just as easily mean a girl has a woeful case of headlice, or that damn hair extension clip has come loose again. If a socially inept person has to be told what to do because they don't understand social cues, then they're going to need another book to tell them what to do with a girl when they eventually somehow manage to get her into bed.

Sounds like fierce exciting stuff, all that passion and spontaneity and... Oh crap, he's only half way through the book, he hasn't got to the chapter yet on how to be more like Sting in bed!

So marketeers, sales people, managers, politicians, clergy, entertainers and many other people are wasting their time? All these careers depend on tried and tested techniques to seduce people into believing or saying or doing what they want them to.

Having worked in a number of the above roles in my rather extensive and colourful career history (Except the political and clergy, I was approached to go into politics alright, and my mother wanted me to be a priest, neither career appealed to me), I'm fully aware how easy it is to sell something to people by creating a want for it rather than fulfilling an actual need. PUA is marketed as a lifestyle to people who want to aspire to that lifestyle. There's no need there, but an artificial product is created and sold to the sap who feels a need to get his rocks off. What he actually needs, is to work on himself in order to make himself more attractive, real attraction, not just faking it. People prefer real over fake any day - it's easy spot a fake Rolex, and I wouldn't be happy to pay the price of a real one for a fake. Would you? But there's always some poor sap who can't tell the difference and thinks he's getting a bargain.

People obviously cannot tell the difference between what is fake and what is real. Otherwise there would be no religion, no superstition, no fraud, no politicians, no magicians and no show biz.

Smarter people can tell the difference between what's real and what's fake, that's why PUA ideology is so easily sold to socially inept people, because they can't tell the difference having never experienced the difference because of their own narcissist viewpoint.

Quite clearly men who are socially inept have a natural disadvantage compared to women who are socially inept.

Men who are socially inept are less likely to find a mate while women who are physically attractive are likely to have no problem getting male attention.

That is the fundamental difference between the sexes when it comes to human courtship.

Ah yes, attractive socially inept women just love feeling intimidated, such a turn on for them to get all that unwelcome male attention when they'd rather take a running jump behind a sofa or somewhere so they wouldn't feel so creeped out by someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "NO!". It doesn't mean "Come back in five minutes time and try again", it doesn't mean "Sure, follow me round the club all night in the hope that I'll don a pair of beer goggles and take you home". It means NO.

Human beings are clearly hardwired for quid pro quo.

Every human interaction is an exchange and an attempt to establish oneself within the pecking order.

Otherwise we would not have social classes, hierarchical organisation, leaders and followers, sport, business, economies, nations and empires and wars.

Human beings are hard wired for nothing. That's how we biologically and organically evolve. Machines and electronic circuitry are hard wired - programmed to do specific tasks and never deviate from repetition, never learn, never evolve. The complete opposite of human behaviour and evolution. All the rest of that paragraph is based on your lack of understanding of social constructs. Societies are formed and constructed around a common interest among a group of people. The more people in the group, the stronger and more powerful they become. That's why the PUA ideology will never catch on and will always only ever appeal to the minority of weaker minded people who never think of anybody's needs but their own.

Your conception of human nature is utterly wrong and utterly naive.

Says the chap who has his head so firmly buried in the sand that he cannot see his opinion of how to become attractive to people is actually in the minority and for all his observing other people, he still takes his social cues from books written for entertainment purposes only.

Pen.Island

I am not part of the pro PUA brigade btw, and would never use any "negging" or "peacocking".

I would however act slightly differently on nights out if I was approaching women. I rarely do though.

I amn't a confident person naturally, I don't say much. But on nights out when I'm with friends the energy is up and I act more confident and if I was my usual don't say much self then conversation would be non existent with women. I also know that when I am talkative and confident that it is me and not an act that someone taught me.

A lot of guys would act more confidently, with drink on them etc, and thus appear more attractive to women. Is this "misleading" and "manipulative"? I don't think so. Therefore just because someone changes the way they act to make them appear more attractive to women doesn't make them users or whatever.

Pen.Island wrote: »

I am not part of the pro PUA brigade btw, and would never use any "negging" or "peacocking".

I would however act slightly differently on nights out if I was approaching women. I rarely do though.

I amn't a confident person naturally, I don't say much. But on nights out when I'm with friends the energy is up and I act more confident and if I was my usual don't say much self then conversation would be non existent with women. I also know that when I am talkative and confident that it is me and not an act that someone taught me.

A lot of guys would act more confidently, with drink on them etc, and thus appear more attractive to women. Is this "misleading" and "manipulative"? I don't think so. Therefore just because someone changes the way they act to make them appear more attractive to women doesn't make them users or whatever.

Yeah see there's nothing wrong with that, "Dutch Courage", but it's a whole different ball game when you're going out of your way to learn how to manipulate people in order for them to have sex with you. That's when you're wading into dodgy territory.

Daveysil15

Czarcasm wrote: »

it's a whole different ball game when you're going out of your way to learn how to manipulate people in order for them to have sex with you.

Can you give me an example of how this might happen? What exactly can a man say to manipulate a woman into having sex with him? She would still have to be attracted to him would she not? I know a lot of guys tell a few white lies or say certain things to charm a woman, but actually manipulating someone into having sex with them? I just don't buy it. Maybe there's a few rare cases but I just can't see it been the norm on a typical night out.

Pen.Island

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yeah see there's nothing wrong with that, "Dutch Courage", but it's a whole different ball game when you're going out of your way to learn how to manipulate people in order for them to have sex with you. That's when you're wading into dodgy territory.

Why is dutch courage ok though? They are fundamentally changing their personality on that night.

I don't think many people discuss what's gonna happen between 2 people on the night they meet (i.e are they going to see each other again). I don't believe there's anything wrong with a guy acting differently on a night out, having the mutual ONS and leaving it at that. The two people obviously liked each other on that particular night so not too much wrong there in my opinion.

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Can you give me an example of how this might happen? What exactly can a man say to manipulate a woman into having sex with him? She would still have to be attracted to him would she not? I know a lot of guys tell a few white lies or say certain things to charm a woman, but actually manipulating someone into having sex with them? I just don't buy it. Maybe there's a few rare cases but I just can't see it been the norm on a typical night out.

Oh don't get me wrong Dave, that's exactly all it is - a few rare cases. Most people have no interest in manipulating anyone into having sex with them, and there's nothing wrong (IMO at least) with a guy stretching the truth or exaggerating a bit to make himself appear more attractive (Though stretching the truth to some guys there's a common misconception that women are only interested in a guy who flashes the cash and puts about that he's far more wealthy than he is, when in reality he spends his days flipping burgers for minimum wage! Nobody likes a Walter Mitty!).

Anyway, as an example of how manipulation happens -

Remember that video Vitaliorange posted earlier of the PUA guy standing outside the club doing the piece to camera during "skank hour", and he completely sober trying to pick up drunk women. That's a lot of the problem I have with guys like that who are sober who will prey on drunk women who they sense they can easily take home. I have no respect for a man that would do that, and I don't think many men would either, yet these are the sort of manipulative "approaches" that are celebrated among the PUA sub-culture.

You ask what a man can say to manipulate a woman into having sex with him? I'm sure you were aware when you were a teenager of girls who would have sex with guys because they wanted to be seen as popular among their peer group? A guy would just have to call her a frigid, and that would just set something off in her that she'd feel the need to "prove" she wasn't frigid. Again, thankfully, such scenarios aren't so common that they'd be in a majority of cases, but you just asked for an example.

I could give you plenty more examples of "coyote ugly", but we'd be here all night.

Pen.Island wrote: »

Why is dutch courage ok though? They are fundamentally changing their personality on that night.

See there's the thing - they're not going out of their way to be manipulative, they're not fundamentally changing their personality either (alcoholic effects only last a couple of hours max), alcohol helps them lower their inhibitions. That's a completely different scenario from intentionally manipulating another person in order to have sex with them.

I don't think many people discuss what's gonna happen between 2 people on the night they meet (i.e are they going to see each other again). I don't believe there's anything wrong with a guy acting differently on a night out, having the mutual ONS and leaving it at that. The two people obviously liked each other on that particular night so not too much wrong there in my opinion.

I personally don't have any issue with ONS', but the whole idea of lying to someone and bigging yourself up making like you're something you're not, just to get somebody to sleep with you? OK, you may not have an issue with that, but I personally would see it as nothing more than pathetic. You're giving a false impression of yourself and doing yourself no favors. For me personally it'd be too much of a mental mind fcuk to be having to lie like that when it's just so much easier to be yourself, and if you take one thing away from this thread-

The sex is infinitely better and much more fun when you're being yourself and not what you think the other person wants you to be in order to get her to have sex with you!

Mutual respect is a far more fulfilling philosophy and far more attractive than having to keep up a pretence in order to get somebody to be attracted to you.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Most people have no interest in manipulating anyone into having sex with them, and there's nothing wrong (IMO at least) with a guy stretching the truth or exaggerating a bit to make himself appear more attractive
.

Again, this contradicts what you say just moments later:

Czarcasm wrote: »

I personally don't have any issue with ONS', but the whole idea of lying to someone and bigging yourself up making like you're something you're not, just to get somebody to sleep with you? OK, you may not have an issue with that, but I personally would see it as nothing more than pathetic.

Either there's nothing wrong with it, or it's pathetic, which is it?

Again, the 'sanitising' of non-PUA encounters is quite evident. It's like people are stunned and aghast that somebody would be less than honest when trying to pick up a guy/girl for the night, and that nothing like it ever happened before PUA came along.

In reality, it has always been happening, all over the place. Some people may see it as distasteful and manipulative (it may indeed be both those things) but it's not new.

osarusan wrote: »

Again, this contradicts what you say just moments later:

Either there's nothing wrong with it, or it's pathetic, which is it?

Come on now osarusan, I gave an example after I said that in the first post- the burger flipper who makes like a millionaire to impress a girl (I've heard some real whoppers in my time

), that's pathetic.

Again, the 'sanitising' of non-PUA encounters is quite evident. It's like people are stunned and aghast that somebody would be less than honest when trying to pick up a guy/girl for the night, and that nothing like it ever happened before PUA came along.

In reality, it has always been happening, all over the place. Some people may see it as distasteful and manipulative (it may indeed be both those things) but it's not new.

There's nobody says it's anything new though, but it's the PUA pseudopsychology is fairly new, and that's what I personally would have an issue with, because of what I would see as it's insidious and intentionally manipulative nature. I never was a big fan of exploitation for personal gain. I don't think many people are, and that's why I wouldn't consider PUA any sort of realistic threat to wider society. There will undoubtedly always be a market for it, and even Wibbs mentioned earlier one PUA guy he met who was inquiring about the feasibility of marketing PUA to men in their 40's. Wibbs mentioned that people in their 40's wouldn't fall for that kind of stuff, but just IME alone - there'd be a sizeable market for it. The language would require a little tweaking, but it could undoubtedly sell like hot cakes.

And before you point out the obvious - No, I'm not contradicting myself, I would still have an issue with PUA because of it's exploitative and manipulative philosophy, but I'm just saying that there's definitely a profitable market segment could be tapped into and exploited.