The Game By Neil strauss

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.

Employing certain social and emotional behaviours to get something - usually sex, a one-night-stand, a phone number - as though women are something you can control. Textbook manipulation.

Treating any interaction with a woman as a game, with codes and rules to follow in order to achieve this end result - as opposed to engaging in a genuine interaction based on that individual woman's personality, and seeing how you get on as two individual people and if a natural attraction grows from that.

PUA is all about emotional and social manipulation as far as I can see. Engaging in certain behaviours to make a woman feel "safe" with you, "negging" her to undermine her confidence and play on her insecurities,, mind-games and power play, objectifying and stereotyping and treating women as nothing more than games to be won at all costs.

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yes but if the end result is a ONS, then both people still get what they want. The woman must also want it in order for it to happen. Women get horny too and want to have sex. Does it really matter if the man employed a social or emotional behaviour prior to the encounter? You make it sound like the woman is been tricked. Two people meet in a club; they're both drunk, both horny, both fancy each other, and both just want sex. That's often all there is too it. I still don't see where the manipulation comes into it.

Well yeah, that's the normal mating ritual. Two people meet, are physically attracted to one another, have sex. Nothing wrong with that.

PUA is about engaging in this ritual by means of deceit - pretending to be something you're not, I.E actually interested in the woman and not just getting into her pants, in order to get laid.

It's about the direct opposite of "being yourself" in order to attract a woman - hence why it largely attracts unconfident, shy, socially awkward men as its clients - encouraging them to be some over-confident, overtly sexual, alpha-male stereotype who stereotypes women accordingly and engages in tailored mind-games to get into their pants.

Of course women have minds of their own and are capable of conscious choice in these matters - sex is a female need too, of course it is. But it's the means of seduction used, that seeks to exploit a woman's insecurities and weaknesses, by getting inside her head and offering her more than you have any interest in giving - "oh look, it's a guy who's interested in who I am, a guy who isn't just interested in my looks ("negging"), an honest guy with balls for a change ("the opener")..."

It's essentially emotionally jerking someone around for a quick lay.

As you get older and wiser on the dating scene, you can smell this insincere bullsh1t a mile off, but many, many women, who are sick of the creeps and aRseholes and are just looking for an honest, confident guy to show a genuine interest in them, will be vulnerable to this kind of headfcuk.

Daveysil15 wrote: »

`

Tbh beks, I think that would only be a problem in a relationship, or if a guy was pretending he wanted something more than casual sex, but if it is just a ONS then the lies don't really matter because its only a brief encounter and both people probably won't see each other again.

I once lied to a woman about my job. We had a brief fling and then went our separate ways. She never found out about it so its not a big deal really. I'm sure it can work the other way too. Maybe some women aren't completely honest about themselves when they first meet a guy, but again, if its just a brief encounter where both people have some fun and never see each other again, then I don't see it as been a problem.

What if the woman decides to sleep with the man based on the idea that the man is interested in her as a person and will want to see her again after the encounter?

An idea put in her head by all his seductive (and deceitful) advances throughout their interaction.

beks101 wrote: »

What if the woman decides to sleep with the man based on the idea that the man is interested in her as a person and will want to see her again after the encounter?

An idea put in her head by all his seductive (and deceitful) advances throughout their interaction.

I don't really see that as been a regular occurrence where two people have just met for the first time. "I like you as a person even though I barely know you, lets sleep together." It's not realistic, and again its not behaviour that's limited to PUA.

If two people had known each other for a while, say they worked together or something and the guy just wanted to sleep with her and promised something else, then fair enough. But it still takes two to tango and each person needs to make up their own mind about the person they're with.

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yes but if the end result is a ONS, then both people still get what they want. The woman must also want it in order for it to happen. Women get horny too and want to have sex. Does it really matter if the man employed a social or emotional behaviour prior to the encounter? You make it sound like the woman is been tricked. Two people meet in a club; they're both drunk, both horny, both fancy each other, and both just want sex. That's often all there is too it. I still don't see where the manipulation comes into it.

Really?

Now don't get me wrong, I think the majority of PUA is BS, but even if what you say is true, that women can be so easily manipulated into having sex, its certainly not the sort of behaviour that is limited to PUA.

Most people would agree that the behaviour isn't limited to PUA (Hell, most people wouldn't even be aware that PUA exists, let alone that it exists as a pseudoscience), but that's the thing - PUA is actively encouraging the behaviour, and "teaching" people to manipulate people.

Some women are just skanks though. If a skank hooks up with a PUA they're not doing anyone any harm. Let them at it. If she's not a skank she doesn't have to engage with him.

No women are skanks Dave, horrible word tbh, but it shows how little you really understand about manipulation if you think everything is so black and white.

Yes with teenagers I could see it happening a bit more often as there is pressure on youngsters to lose their virginity and they don't want to seem uncool, but you're still very naïve and impressionable at that age.

Dave, people are naïve and impressionable at any age, and easily manipulated at any age.

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I don't really see that as been a regular occurrence where two people have just met for the first time. "I like you as a person even though I barely know you, lets sleep together." It's not realistic, and again its not behaviour that's limited to PUA.

If two people had known each other for a while, say they worked together or something and the guy just wanted to sleep with her and promised something else, then fair enough. But it still takes two to tango and each person needs to make up their own mind about the person they're with.

I don't think your example was very realistic Dave tbh, and while it's easy to say each person needs to make up their own mind about the person they're with - they can only do that if they have all the facts to hand, and if you're trying to portray yourself as something you're not, in order to try and convince a girl to sleep with you - that's manipulation, and it's a fairly underhanded way of carrying on, and it should never be seen as acceptable, nor encouraged, regardless of whether or not it's limited to PUA.

Pen.Island wrote: »

So alcohol is ok to change your personality but choosing to do it is not?

People drink to become more confident than they are, they know that this will happen.

Alcohol doesn't change your personality, it just lowers your inhibitions.

Bolderdash wrote: »

Then PUA doesn't necessarily change your personality, it just lowers your inhibitions in a healthier drug free way.

Nobody ever said PUA changes a person's personality? It doesn't lower inhibitions either, it just teaches a person how to manipulate other people as opposed to a person who is a natural manipulator.

It's certainly not healthy as it preys on people's insecurities, and it gives them a false sense of achievement (there's no achievement in taking advantage of someone else for your own personal gain), and it can cost as much as drugs depending on the amount of time and money you're convinced to spend on it. We had one poster earlier who had been following PUA crap for SEVEN YEARS?? That can't be healthy surely?

But that's completely benign. As has been acknowledged, nearly all of us modify our mannerisms SOME bit when wanting another person to fancy us, but there is a scale, and when it's entering sinister manipulation territory, that's when it's wrong.

Wibbs wrote: »

TL;DR? Both genders can be accused of surface bullshít when it comes to attraction. One might argue one has just become more acceptable than the other because it's been around for longer.

Has it though? I mean, men too have been using make-up since year dot in order to attract females, they've worn certain clothes, they've worn certain shoes, styled their hair a certain way, all with the intention of making themselves physically more attractive to the opposite sex. Hell, I used wear new rocks shoes because aside from comfort, they also gave me an extra two inches in height (I've always been insecure about the fact I'm a bit of a shortarse at 5'10", the shoes brought me up to 6ft... Oh the LOLs that were had when I'd step down out of my new rocks and she'd whip off her wonderbra... NOT! :pac:), but any of those are physical characteristics.

What makes the whole mental manipulation so offensive is that it's intended to work at much deeper than just the superficial level. The whole idea of manipulating another person mentally... I would say to anyone to knock themselves out manipulating their own mind (that's the essence of CBT), but when you try to manipulate and play mind games with another person's mind, that's where it gets shìtty!

Bolderdash wrote: »

I generally find making a woman laugh at herself is a good way to make her fancy you.

Am I being manipulative because I know this or should I accidentally make women laugh at themselves rather than on purpose?

Bolderdash you can't "make" someone fancy you, you can only make yourself appear more attractive. Maybe it's the way you're wording it, as I do understand what you mean, but I would say it's more that they're attracted to your sense of humor and the way you don't take yourself too seriously, and it appears to them that you're not putting them on a pedestal, you're not kissing their arse and fawning over them basically.

Most people would consider that an attractive quality over the idea of viewing women as Godesses and treating them like they're a different species. That's why this manipulating women and "figuring them out" would be insulting to most women as it generalises whole swathes of women as being dim enough to be manipulated by that nonsense.