The Game By Neil strauss

Czarcasm · 20-12-2013 07:02PM

Bolderdash wrote: »

Ok so in essence that was nonsense, playboy articles aren't PUA. PUA has only really been around for 10 years.

The fact you put the two in the same bracket speaks volumes and explains your complete misunderstanding of PUA.

I think you'd do well to check your own facts before you tell others they don't know what they're talking about -

A pickup artist is a man who trains in the skills and art of finding, attracting, and seducing women. Such a man purportedly abides by a certain system deemed effective by that community in his attempts to seduce women.

The use of pickup in this context, slang for making a casual acquaintance with a stranger in anticipation of sexual relations, dates from at least World War II, as attested by antiprostitution posters, and is again attested in the 1970 book How to Pick Up Girls by Eric Weber. The phrase was also popularized by Pick-Up Times, a short-lived 1970s magazine and the 1987 semi-autobiographical film The Pick-up Artist, written and directed by James Toback.

Long used, the term "pickup artist" was the title of a 1987 film, The Pick-up Artist, a romantic comedy starred Molly Ringwald and Robert Downey Jr.. More recently was the publication of Neil Strauss's book, The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, and in 2007, the reality television series, The Pickup Artist, shown on VH1, starring pickup artist Mystery (Erik von Markovik).

Source: Wikipedia (Bold emphasis is my own edit)

And if I wanted to be particularly arsey about it, I could quote at least a dozen other sources besides Wikipedia that would contradict your ill informed "expert" opinion.

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 07:56PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think you'd do well to check your own facts before you tell others they don't know what they're talking about -

Source: Wikipedia (Bold emphasis is my own edit)

And if I wanted to be particularly arsey about it, I could quote at least a dozen other sources besides Wikipedia that would contradict your ill informed "expert" opinion.

We are clearly talking about modern PUA here and the techniques associated with it, some of which were mentioned in the game.

How many men do you know who have been using this stuff for twenty years? None, because it wasn't around twenty years. Whoever heard of a" false time constrant" twenty years ago, no one.

Show me some proof bootcamps were taking place 20+ years ago.

Daveysil15 · 20-12-2013 08:02PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yes Dave, they will, but the number of women that will fall for the PUA guff are statistically insignificant in terms of a population like Ireland.

Czarcasm wrote: »

It actually WOULD be shocking if PUA was any way effective.

Well there you go. I certainly have no arguments with that. And if its so ineffective, then where are all these naïve women who are been manipulated?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Do you actually not realise how creepy this sounds?

What? Approaching a woman during the day and talking to her? Yes, very creepy.

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

If I used my womanly charms to make a man believe that I wanted a ONS when all I wanted was free drinks, would that be fair? It's the same idea as far as I can see.

It's not really though, because the man gets nothing out of that situation. If two people have a ONS, I think its safe to assume both people got something out of it. If there were any regrets afterwards, (which there sometimes is) then its unlikely PUA was the result of that.

Czarcasm wrote: »

PUA was around before my arse was as big as a shirt button.

I'll have to remember that one.

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 08:06PM

Phoenix wrote: »

So,will anyone divulge what the game really is?

The game is a book which chronicles the journey of the author Neil Strauss as he entered the "seduction community" and went on to become skilled in various techniques at attracting and seducing women. His journey began in 2001 I believe and he published his book "The Game" in 2005.

The "seduction community" is a community of men and some women who endeavour to improve their ability to seduce women. They discuss techniques on forums. Numerous companies offer bootcamps were they teach seminars and bring men out "in the field" to approach women. They do demos, give advice, drills and offer feedback and a plan for improvement. Today there are even hidden camera bootcamps which record your approaches in order to analyse your sticking points.

Czarcasm · 20-12-2013 08:29PM

Bolderdash wrote: »

We are clearly talking about modern PUA here and the techniques associated with it, some of which were mentioned in the game.

I'm well aware what we're talking about here, I was merely showing you that it's been around a lot longer than you think, and indeed what you call "Modern PUA" is at least 20 years old.

How many men do you know who have been using this stuff for twenty years? None, because it wasn't around twenty years. Whoever heard of a" false time constrant" twenty years ago, no one.

Well you could at least have waited for me to answer the question. I knew plenty then, and I know plenty now.

Show me some proof bootcamps were taking place 20+ years ago.

Since you ask -

The modern seduction movement dates to 1970, with the publication of How To Pick Up Girls! by Eric Weber, credited as the first modern pickup artist. The 1970s and 1980s saw independent authors and teachers, but no organized community. The seduction community itself originated with Ross Jeffries and his students. In the late 1980s, Jeffries taught workshops, promoted a collection of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) techniques called "speed seduction" (SS), and published a short book of his techniques, How to Get the Women You Desire into Bed. Other gurus established themselves in roughly the same era, but lacked contacts with each other. In 1994, Lewis De Payne, then a student of Jeffries, founded the newsgroup alt.seduction.fast (ASF), which marked the birth of the community per se. This then spawned a network of other Internet discussion forums, email lists, blogs, and sites where seduction techniques could be exchanged.

The original alt.seduction.fast became overwhelmed with spam, and a group called "Learn the Skills Corporation" developed a moderated alternative known as "Moderated ASF" (commonly "mASF").[citation needed] During the same period, in the late 1990s, Clifford Lee began his Cliff's List Seduction Letter as a central independent voice of the community.

Other seduction teachers emerged with competing methods, and became known within this community as "seduction gurus" or "gurus". The first commercially successful seduction/pick up book was a manual by Tariq Nasheed (also known as King Flex) entitled The Art Of Mackin, which was released in 2000. Tariq Nasheed went on to write several other seduction/dating books such as The Mack Within: The Holy Book Of Game and The Elite Way:10 Rules Men Must Know In Order To Deal With Women.

The community was brought to greater mainstream awareness with the 1999 drama film Magnolia, in which Tom Cruise portrayed a charismatic yet embittered and emotionally troubled pickup guru who was loosely modeled on Ross Jeffries.

Source: Wikipedia.

(It's as handy as any source you'd prefer, and earlier in the thread I mentioned how NLP on which much of the "Modern PUA" is based, was completely debunked by the scientific community early on as nothing more than pseudopsychology and nonsense).

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 08:51PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm well aware what we're talking about here, I was merely showing you that it's been around a lot longer than you think, and indeed what you call "Modern PUA" is at least 20 years old.

Well you could at least have waited for me to answer the question. I knew plenty then, and I know plenty now.

Since you ask -

Source: Wikipedia.

(It's as handy as any source you'd prefer, and earlier in the thread I mentioned how NLP on which much of the "Modern PUA" is based, was completely debunked by the scientific community early on as nothing more than pseudopsychology and nonsense).

So no bootcamps, NLP isn't modern PUA.

how many people were practicing PUA pre 2005, a miniscule amount. So you can tell me you've seen 20 years of PUA "effects" but I think you are mistaking something else in your head for PUA.

Czarcasm · 20-12-2013 09:30PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Well there you go. I certainly have no arguments with that. And if its so ineffective, then where are all these naïve women who are been manipulated?

They don't walk around with it written across their forehead if that's what you mean?

I was out for dinner and drinks Wednesday night with two of my mates, both of them female, ten years younger than me, and I suggested during dinner that we hit the club after drinks. They had guys hitting on them all night, but they were having none of it. But there were plenty of girls there that would easily have bought every line these guys were spinning.

What? Approaching a woman during the day and talking to her? Yes, very creepy.

There's approaching a woman during the day and talking to her, and then there's the likes of the nose picker that was badgering a girl for a kiss. Sure you can say it's all about perception, but most people would indeed consider such behaviour creepy.

It's not really though, because the man gets nothing out of that situation. If two people have a ONS, I think its safe to assume both people got something out of it. If there were any regrets afterwards, (which there sometimes is) then its unlikely PUA was the result of that.

The woman could argue that for that drink, the guy had the pleasure of her company for that few minutes, ie - therefore he did indeed get something out of it, just not as much as he may have hoped. I wouldn't argue that though as I think girls manipulating guys to buy them drinks is just as shìtty a thing to do as the PUA stuff.

In an ONS scenario where the guy intends to get the girl into bed, the PUA guy will tell her whatever he thinks she wants to hear to get her into bed, usually along the lines that he'll give her the night of her life, etc. She's not getting much out of it then if she has to do all the work. PUA got the girl into bed, but then he hadn't a clue what to do after that. The amount of times I've heard a girl complain about the fact that the guy promised so much, but delivered so little...

It's a shìtty thing to do to another person, manipulating them to get them into bed just to get your "success rate" numbers up.

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 09:35PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

They don't walk around with it written across their forehead if that's what you mean?

I was out for dinner and drinks Wednesday night with two of my mates, both of them female, ten years younger than me, and I suggested during dinner that we hit the club after drinks. They had guys hitting on them all night, but they were having none of it. But there were plenty of girls there that would easily have bought every line these guys were spinning.

There's approaching a woman during the day and talking to her, and then there's the likes of the nose picker that was badgering a girl for a kiss. Sure you can say it's all about perception, but most people would indeed consider such behaviour creepy.

The woman could argue that for that drink, the guy had the pleasure of her company for that few minutes, ie - therefore he did indeed get something out of it, just not as much as he may have hoped. I wouldn't argue that though as I think girls manipulating guys to buy them drinks is just as shìtty a thing to do as the PUA stuff.

In an ONS scenario where the guy intends to get the girl into bed, the PUA guy will tell her whatever he thinks she wants to hear to get her into bed, usually along the lines that he'll give her the night of her life, etc. She's not getting much out of it then if she has to do all the work. PUA got the girl into bed, but then he hadn't a clue what to do after that. The amount of times I've heard a girl complain about the fact that the guy promised so much, but delivered so little...

It's a shìtty thing to do to another person, manipulating them to get them into bed just to get your "success rate" numbers up.

You're describing the behavours of random men who try to chat up women and speculating wildly.

A PUA isn't any man who tries to chat up a woman.

Can you quote the PUA advice which states you should "tell a woman whatever she wants to hear to get her into bed"?

Where are you getting your information that all PUAs are bad in bed? Looking forward to how you answer this.

Can you quote the PUA advice where you should "manipulate women to increase your success rate"?

PUA is about making yourself more attractive and becoming better at approaching women. Women like sex, they don't need to be "manipulated" into bed.

Daveysil15 · 20-12-2013 09:49PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

They don't walk around with it written across their forehead if that's what you mean?

No but you seem so vehemently against PUA, yet you acknowledge that's its largely ineffective. It just seems a bit frivolous to me.

I was out for dinner and drinks Wednesday night with two of my mates, both of
them female, ten years younger than me, and I suggested during dinner that we
hit the club after drinks. They had guys hitting on them all night, but they
were having none of it. But there were plenty of girls there that would easily
have bought every line these guys were spinning.

Were those guys PUA's though? It's a lot of speculating.

There's approaching a woman during the day and talking to her, and then there's the likes of the nose picker that was badgering a girl for a kiss. Sure you can say it's all about perception, but most people would indeed consider such behaviour creepy.

Well the example I gave was nothing like that. Here it is again in case you didn't see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCoWkLZQ5yQ

Some of its fairly cringy but I wouldn't consider it creepy.

In an ONS scenario where the guy intends to get the girl into bed, the PUA guy will tell her whatever he thinks she wants to hear to get her into bed,

So will a lot of guys who are not PUA's, and as you've already pointed out, PUA is not very effective.

I've heard a girl complain about the fact that the guy promised so much, but delivered so little...

Again, that's not limited to, (in fact probably unlikely) to be attributed to PUA.

Czarcasm · 20-12-2013 09:53PM

Bolderdash wrote: »

So no bootcamps, NLP isn't modern PUA.

Jesus H, you're desperate to be right at any cost, but when you resort to semantics - bootcamps, workshops, same difference! NLP the BASIS of modern PUA. It's there in the article in black and white, and it's also on the Advanced PUA Forums, and if that's STILL not good enough for you, well, Neil Strauss still thinks it's the shìt!

how many people were practicing PUA pre 2005, a miniscule amount. So you can tell me you've seen 20 years of PUA "effects" but I think you are mistaking something else in your head for PUA.

I think it's yourself Bolderdash has a completely misguided understanding of PUA, or modern PUA, or seduction techniques, or whatever other term you'd like to call it in your head.

Since you're fond of stats and scores btw that's three for three.

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 09:58PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Jesus H, you're desperate to be right at any cost, but when you resort to semantics - bootcamps, workshops, same difference! NLP the BASIS of modern PUA. It's there in the article in black and white, and it's also on the Advanced PUA Forums, and if that's STILL not good enough for you, well, Neil Strauss still thinks it's the shìt!

I think it's yourself Bolderdash has a completely misguided understanding of PUA, or modern PUA, or seduction techniques, or whatever other term you'd like to call it in your head.

Since you're fond of stats and scores btw that's three for three.

Tell me the people you know who pratice PUA?

You've seen 20 years of PUA effects afterall and the chance of a woman having been approached by a PUA pre 2005 would be about the same as being hit by lightning twice.

And no, just because you saw a friend chat up a woman once doesn't mean they practice PUA.

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 10:06PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Daveysil15 wrote: »

FFS, look at the name of that video you linked to. 'Daygame revealed'. Seriously? Thats the part that comes across as creepy, not coming on to a girl in daytime. How much have you PUA lads spent on 'programs' and 'bootcamps'? Seems to me thats why you're so defensive of it, cant bear the fact you paid to pick up basic social skills from a few financially savvy creeps.

you can download most of this stuff for free.

If you think there is nothing you can learn from other people about attracting women you are mistaken. In life you should always keep an open mind and be willing to learn.

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 10:40PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Most? I didn't say there was nothing to learn from other people about attracting women either. Would you like to point out where you think I said that?

You seemed to be assuming one needs to lack basic social skills to enter the world of PUA.

People who are already good with women into PUA too, as you can always improve.

Mocha Joe · 20-12-2013 10:43PM

Bolderdash wrote: »

You seemed to be assuming one needs to lack basic social skills to enter the world of PUA.

People who are already good with women into PUA too, as you can always improve.

I find the general tone of these type of posts make my skin begin to crawl.

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 10:44PM

Mocha Joe wrote: »

I find the general tone of these type of posts make my skin begin to crawl.

Thats fine, I only speak the truth.Is there something you disagree with?

sport_nut · 20-12-2013 11:02PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

They don't walk around with it written across their forehead if that's what you mean?

I was out for dinner and drinks Wednesday night with two of my mates, both of them female, ten years younger than me, and I suggested during dinner that we hit the club after drinks. They had guys hitting on them all night, but they were having none of it. But there were plenty of girls there that would easily have bought every line these guys were spinning.

There's approaching a woman during the day and talking to her, and then there's the likes of the nose picker that was badgering a girl for a kiss. Sure you can say it's all about perception, but most people would indeed consider such behaviour creepy.

The woman could argue that for that drink, the guy had the pleasure of her company for that few minutes, ie - therefore he did indeed get something out of it, just not as much as he may have hoped. I wouldn't argue that though as I think girls manipulating guys to buy them drinks is just as shìtty a thing to do as the PUA stuff.

In an ONS scenario where the guy intends to get the girl into bed, the PUA guy will tell her whatever he thinks she wants to hear to get her into bed, usually along the lines that he'll give her the night of her life, etc. She's not getting much out of it then if she has to do all the work. PUA got the girl into bed, but then he hadn't a clue what to do after that. The amount of times I've heard a girl complain about the fact that the guy promised so much, but delivered so little...

It's a shìtty thing to do to another person, manipulating them to get them into bed just to get your "success rate" numbers up.

I think your putting women on a pedestal , women don't like nice guys , they get hot for guys who treat them a little mean

PUA just helps guys fine tune their approach

Czarcasm · 20-12-2013 11:03PM

Daveysil15 wrote: »

No but you seem so vehemently against PUA, yet you acknowledge that's its largely ineffective. It just seems a bit frivolous to me.

I wouldn't be vehemently against it, I just think it's pathetic more than anything. The ideology and the methods ARE ineffective, but still I don't like to see anyone being exploited - that goes for the guys that are shelling out hard cash for this stuff, and the girls that they then try to exploit and manipulate.

Were those guys PUA's though? It's a lot of speculating.

Nah, they weren't PUAs, I saw them approach a few more girls alright, but with the same results. They weren't bad looking guys, but the way they carried themselves, it just wasn't working for them. It was more like they were just chancing their arm than actually making any genuine effort.

Well the example I gave was nothing like that. Here it is again in case you didn't see it:

Some of its fairly cringy but I wouldn't consider it creepy.

There's the thing see - he has no genuine interest in the women he's talking to (and clearly they have no genuine interest in him), but is a person who lacks social skills going to pick up on that, or are they just going to copy what he does and follow his instructions to the letter, and wonder where they went wrong when it doesn't work?

So will a lot of guys who are not PUA's, and as you've already pointed out, PUA is not very effective.

Again, that's not limited to, (in fact probably unlikely) to be attributed to PUA.

You're not willing to accept though that PUA systems and methodologies are ineffective, and you're shifting the goalposts the whole time to suit your argument. So what if it was or wasn't PUA, call it what you want, manipulation is just exploiting someone as a means to an end, with no regard for the person you're choosing to exploit.

Czarcasm · 20-12-2013 11:11PM

Bolderdash wrote: »

You're describing the behavours of random men who try to chat up women and speculating wildly.

A PUA isn't any man who tries to chat up a woman.

Can you quote the PUA advice which states you should "tell a woman whatever she wants to hear to get her into bed"?

Where are you getting your information that all PUAs are bad in bed? Looking forward to how you answer this.

Can you quote the PUA advice where you should "manipulate women to increase your success rate"?

PUA is about making yourself more attractive and becoming better at approaching women. Women like sex, they don't need to be "manipulated" into bed.

Bolderdash wrote: »

Tell me the people you know who pratice PUA?

You've seen 20 years of PUA effects afterall and the chance of a woman having been approached by a PUA pre 2005 would be about the same as being hit by lightning twice.

And no, just because you saw a friend chat up a woman once doesn't mean they practice PUA.

You're just being silly now Bolderdash tbh.

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 11:12PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're just being silly now Bolderdash tbh.

Ok.

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 11:15PM

One thing I'll add, anyone who can film themselves approaching strangers for the world to see gets my respect, it takes some balls.

Criticising from the sidelines is one of the easiest things to do, taking action and offering solutions that actually work deserves respect imo no matter how hard some protest that they are ineffective.

Czarcasm · 20-12-2013 11:19PM

sport_nut wrote: »

I think your putting women on a pedestal , women don't like nice guys , they get hot for guys who treat them a little mean

PUA just helps guys fine tune their approach

Sport nut I take it you haven't read through the thread? PUA ideology depends on men seeing women as different to them, if that's not putting women on pedestals you tell me what is!

Everybody wants to be treated with respect, and women like a guy who treats them like a human being, the same as men like a girl who treats them like a human being,

Have a look at Return of Kings if you think that's "fine tuning your approach" or encouraging men to treat women with respect.

sport_nut · 20-12-2013 11:43PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Sport nut I take it you haven't read through the thread? PUA ideology depends on men seeing women as different to them, if that's not putting women on pedestals you tell me what is!

Everybody wants to be treated with respect, and women like a guy who treats them like a human being, the same as men like a girl who treats them like a human being,

Have a look at Return of Kings if you think that's "fine tuning your approach" or encouraging men to treat women with respect.

I see women as different than men and I know that women prefer men who share this view

women might like the sound of the whole " equality " thing but their is nothing remotely sexy about it

Wibbs · 20-12-2013 11:44PM

Earlier on in the thread someone posted some PUA advice from some site or other and within it was the advice "don't pick your nose in public". Now in fairness if there is the need to say that to any bloke who has passed the age of getting a beer in a pub, he's got waaaaay more social problems on board.

Though I prefer to stick with individuals, if I'm pushed to break things down along vaguely gender lines I work it like this; there are Men and there are Dicks, there are Women and there are Chicks. We all can swing to one side or the other at times, but some tend to mostly end up in the Chick/Dick zone.

In this context I can see how even the angry PUA promoted by Dicks would work on Chicks alright. The latter, if at all pretty can often believe that they are God's gift and their fannies are the gated highways to bliss for all men(and a nice line in credit/free drinks/blind adoration). Self absorption will be a cast iron given in the species. Now this type usually has a load of orbiting men eager to do their bidding for a sniff of a chance. So not caring/"negging" her will have an effect if the right balance is struck. She's not used to this, so brain fade will likely occur. The idea she has the ability to change men by dint of being around them will also be big juju. And then to bed. Her orbiters will take the emotional fallout and the Angry PUA guy/Dick gets another notch on his bedpost. I can defo see that playing out alright. That said even with the novelty of a man not giving a damn, she'll want some level of cool in that guy.

NB, even if the Chick is the most gorgeous collection of womanly parts you think you've ever laid eyes on, if she's a Chick the saying is true, you will get tired of looking at her(and I euphemised the verb for the younger viewers).

TL;DR? Chicks like bad boys and will respond more to them. Sexually at least(though often that's all they have going on).

I can also see where an actual Woman might be fooled, especially a young woman. One reason "bad boys"(Dicks) can do well is because to a young woman starting out they can mimic some of the virtues of actual Men. They can appear confident, interesting, emotionally mature. Though it's a ruse for the most part, covering up a different kind of social immaturity. Add in the Beauty and the Beast I think I can change him(about the only thing common to women and chicks, though women want to do it for the man as much as themselves) and that's again big juju.

PUA with the male side? Dicks may use it to further their own self centered needs, Men, young men not quite sure how to be men may use it to gain some confidence, but will leave behind the angry PUA stuff born of.. well, anger of emotionally frustrated men, who equate scoring with self esteem and equate putting down an entire gender, just because they got fcuked over by a Chick when they were young.

For me it's ironic that they loudly berate "oneitis", yet their whole lifestyle is often based on a reaction to "The One" who burned them. Show me the biggest cynic and I'll show you the biggest idealist who got burned. Usually only the once too. Hey I've been burned thrice. I've got previous and I am a cynic, however I've also been around quite the number of truly, well... nice human beings as mates and more who happened to have internal gonads and bewbies, so I look to that and realise what I have to work on more is my clearly dubious selection protocol.

My rambling take anyway.

agriman27 · 20-12-2013 11:46PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Sport nut I take it you haven't read through the thread? PUA ideology depends on men seeing women as different to them, if that's not putting women on pedestals you tell me what is!

Everybody wants to be treated with respect, and women like a guy who treats them like a human being, the same as men like a girl who treats them like a human being,

Have a look at Return of Kings if you think that's "fine tuning your approach" or encouraging men to treat women with respect.

Very true if your out to try and meet a woman to start a relationship with but it gets messy when there are chancers out and about purely to get the ride. Spoils it for the decent blokes by making women suspicious that men are only after one thing. Classy women deserve respect

Bolderdash · 20-12-2013 11:58PM

agriman27 wrote: »

Very true if your out to try and meet a woman to start a relationship with but it gets messy when there are chancers out and about purely to get the ride. Spoils it for the decent blokes by making women suspicious that men are only after one thing. Classy women deserve respect

"Classy" women like sex too you know and are often open to having casual sex just like non "classy" women.

There's nothing wrong with just wanting casual sex by the way. Inform the "decent blokes" of this.

Czarcasm · 21-12-2013 12:02AM

sport_nut wrote: »

I see women as different than men and I know that women prefer men who share this view

You know of women that share your views, a small, but important distinction. I see women as different to men too, but only from a physical perspective. After that it's pretty much down to viewing a person as an individual. I couldn't say in my experience of both men and women that they think any differently to each other tbh.

women might like the sound of the whole " equality " thing but their is nothing remotely sexy about it

That depends on what you mean by "equality" tbh, there's nothing sexy about equality if you mean as a women's rights thing, but if you mean viewing a woman as your equal, that can be incredibly sexy!

Wibbs · 21-12-2013 12:04AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Have a look at Return of Kings if you think that's "fine tuning your approach" or encouraging men to treat women with respect.

Yep, for me - and following from the above - that's mostly Dicks complaining about Chicks without personal insight on the part of both(though I'd give the insight prize just a little more to the Dicks in this case). Now at times they do hit the nail on the head on some aspects of gender guff that can go on in the interweb, but they're like conspiracy nuts and similar who jump on the one or two details that make no obvious sense and run with that ignoring the 20 details that do. Very common in the online communities. Their diametric opposites the more loony feminists do similar and one beast feeds the other beast. Rinse and repeat. Meanwhile the rest of us muddle through being people.

I'd say that Return of Kings also has a large vicarious aspect to it for their readers. The main players talk about their PUA lives(especially on the forum) and the rest of the members feed off that. From my reading of same, some of it rings true, but so much of it reads like fiction. To be fair(and IMHO) some of the main guys can actually write well, so it can be hard to divine the reality. Though in a world of advertising and bullshíte and the need to be authentic with goods made in a sweatshop a week ago, there is a major disconnect with who we may be as people and what it is to be "real".

It's just MHO, but I think men are a little more likely to feel that disconnect. We tend to be more anal about such things for a start. Eg women may buy a jacket because it's well tailored and has nice detailing and is from a good label and is based on an earlier design etc. A man is more likely to want a jacket if it can be proven that the exact design was worn by a 17th century privateer on the Jamaican run. We can be suckers for that shíte. Hell I'm typing here with you covered in so much "authentic" I should be in a fúcking museum.

Again brought to you, with heartfelt apologies, from the well worn rambling keyboard of Boards' blowhard. Authentic blowhard mind you...

agriman27 · 21-12-2013 12:08AM

Bolderdash wrote: »

"Classy" women like sex too you know and are often open to having casual sex just like non "classy" women.

There's nothing wrong with just wanting casual sex by the way. Inform the "decent blokes" of this.

We must live in different worlds. I don't think many men would like to think their woman was known as an easy ride though. Maybe it's a city, country town difference where everyone knows everyone:pac:

sport_nut · 21-12-2013 12:11AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

You know of women that share your views, a small, but important distinction. I see women as different to men too, but only from a physical perspective. After that it's pretty much down to viewing a person as an individual. I couldn't say in my experience of both men and women that they think any differently to each other tbh.

That depends on what you mean by "equality" tbh, there's nothing sexy about equality if you mean as a women's rights thing, but if you mean viewing a woman as your equal, that can be incredibly sexy!

im not talking about denying women rights

im saying women are far more attracted to macho - old school guys more than guys who are ultra conscious about the whole " gender neutral " thing

most women are not attracted to nice guys and if they say a guy is " nice " , its a form of abuse , they may in the end have to settle for a " nice " guy but he,s rarely their first choice , its one of the reasons a sizeable number of women end up in physically abusive relationships , they knew the guy was a thug but thugs are attractive to women , most women who are in physically abusive marriages knew the guy was violent prior to marriage but married him anyway due to the sexual attraction

Daveysil15 · 21-12-2013 12:20AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Daveysil15 wrote: »

FFS, look at the name of that video you linked to. 'Daygame revealed'. Seriously? Thats the part that comes across as creepy, not coming on to a girl in daytime. How much have you PUA lads spent on 'programs' and 'bootcamps'? Seems to me thats why you're so defensive of it, cant bear the fact you paid to pick up basic social skills from a few financially savvy creeps.

For the record, I'm not a PUA lad. I think its mostly shyte and have never bought into it. I'm just not convinced that women are been manipulated into having sex through PUA techniques.

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're not willing to accept though that PUA systems and methodologies are ineffective, and you're shifting the goalposts the whole time to suit your argument. So what if it was or wasn't PUA, call it what you want, manipulation is just exploiting someone as a means to an end, with no regard for the person you're choosing to exploit.

I'm not sure what you mean tbh. I do accept that its ineffective - that's the one thing we agree on.

Ok sure, call it what you want. Manipulation is manipulation. PUA in itself doesn't turn every practitioner into a manipulator though. Each person takes from it what they will. So why don't we just call a manipulator a manipulator and a PUA a PUA?

The Game By Neil strauss

Comments