Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Julien Blanc gets destroyed in CNN interview

1…1112141617…19

Comments

  • #392
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Schlafzimmer wrote: »
    I use pua principals and I don't look for vulnerable women, it works on all women, I specifically look for high self esteem women as they make much better girlfriends.

    Cool beans.


  • #393
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    The question is, does this get the rides in or not? If it does I doubt he or his customers give two sheets whether the methods are "questionable" or not.
    As an aside, "questionable" means nothing really unless we're told what the question is.


  • #394
    kryogen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,953 ✭✭✭✭kryogen


    I like the cut of his jib, seems sincere*


    *May not be my actual opinion


  • #395
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    The question is, does this get the rides in or not? If it does I doubt he or his customers give two sheets whether the methods are "questionable" or not.
    And others are allowed to say that that's kinda depressing.


  • #396
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,993 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    strobe wrote: »
    Maybe you should read some of the stuff. It's not "being alluring by pretending you're perfection" it's more "playing on people's insecurities to make them unsure of themselves and therefore easier to manipulate'. They're far more similar than they are different.

    The goal's identical, find someone vulnerable, exploit those vulnerabilities to get what you want from them.

    Just to say, both systems also contain a lot of basically self help, confidence building and the like, which is swell if it works for people but what separates both from your basic self help stuff is the above.

    That's not true at all. The Rules seeks to find you an alpha male rich husband, not weed out the men with the psychological issues and try and break them. There's a huge deference between insulting someone and giving someone the impression that you might be desired by others,have other options and that you're not reliant on their attention. It's what your mother always told you stuff, most of us have heard"don't be to available". It's stupid, it's the road to an untruthful and I imagine unsatisfying relationship but it's entirely different than causing someone psychological distress by abusing them, making them feel unattractive by essentially telling them that they are and then preying upon that distress that you have caused.
    "The chase" has long been a part of romantic relationships, The Rules seeks to make the whole relationship up until the wedding day "the chase". It's foolish but it's different.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No, it's not that they lack agency, it's that they lack a certain amount of self confidence that means that they believe it's possible that what the person is implying may be true. Sadly that lack of confidence is quite common among teenage girls and young women, and is constantly reinforced in the media etc.
    TheBeardedLady wrote: »
    Manipulation of adults happens though. If I went out tonight and purposely picked out a guy I believed was shy and insecure and insulted him then decided I'd go home with him and he obliged, where would you place the blame? Obviously it was up to the guy to come home with me but it doesn't mean I was playing fair either. There was some degree of manipulation there.

    The video I posted talked about making beautiful women feel bad because beautiful women are innately insecure, according to the video. Of course the woman has the ability to refuse but purposely picking on a woman you believe to be lacking in the confidence department is manipulation.

    This tactic wouldn't work on many women and selectively choosing those women to try that stunt on is manipulation.

    I'm not saying the women are to blame for falling for it and I'm not saying that the methods are nice or not manipulative.
    What I am saying is that instead of solely focusing on trying to discourage PUA it would be better to focus on the woman that it actually works on too.
    AFAIK none of the PUA stuff is actually new techniques and some guys act that way naturally, if a woman is supsceptible to a manipulative approach she would end up with a "natural" dickhead anyway even if the PUA stuff didn't exist.
    Ask a bunch of your girl friends if they dated some assholes or well older guys between 17 to 22 or so and I bet you a good number will agree and this happened anyway before PUA was popular.


  • #398
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    And others are allowed to say that that's kinda depressing.
    Depressing for who? People who can't get laid?
    I just find it incredibly puritanical to think that in 2014 people aren't allowed to have sex because, OMG, they like it. Nope, apparently it still has to conform to some higher moral purpose.


  • #399
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,118 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I'm not saying the women are to blame for falling for it and I'm not saying that the methods are nice or not manipulative.
    What I am saying is that instead of solely focusing on trying to discourage PUA it would be better to focus on the woman that it actually works on too.
    AFAIK none of the PUA stuff is actually new techniques and some guys act that way naturally, if a woman is supsceptible to a manipulative approach she would end up with a "natural" dickhead anyway even if the PUA stuff didn't exist.
    Ask a bunch of your girl friends if they dated some assholes or well older guys between 17 to 22 or so and I bet you a good number will agree and this happened anyway before PUA was popular.

    I'm not sure what your point is here. Nobody's talking about putting the guy in prison, or saying that he invented some new wholly irresistible form of mental manipulation. The question is whether it's an acceptable method to teach other people in seminars etc.

    I see it rather like someone wanting a visa to do a tour of the country explaining how to set up some get-rich-quick scheme. Either he's scamming those listening to him, or he's teaching them how to scam others. No way is it about genuinely improving your life, it's about teaching someone to project a false front to manipulate others.

    So even if the method is not illegal, it's not something you want to see happening, and since he needs a visa to get in, that's exactly what visas are for, IMO. Keeping undesirables out.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #400
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,118 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Depressing for who? People who can't get laid?
    I just find it incredibly puritanical to think that in 2014 people aren't allowed to have sex because, OMG, they like it. Nope, apparently it still has to conform to some higher moral purpose.

    I think you completely misunderstood the post you are replying to. It didn't say sex was to be for procreational purposes only, you know - or anything like that.

    The issue is with manipulating other people into doing what you want them to, against their own better judgment, and the sex aspect of it is only the motivation in this case. If it were for monetary gain I would have exactly the same objections. Does that make me anti-money in some way?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #401
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    That's not true at all. The Rules seeks to find you an alpha male rich husband, not weed out the men with the psychological issues and try and break them. There's a huge deference between insulting someone and giving someone the impression that you might be desired by others,have other options and that you're not reliant on their attention. It's what your mother always told you stuff, most of us have heard"don't be to available". It's stupid, it's the road to an untruthful and I imagine unsatisfying relationship but it's entirely different than causing someone psychological distress by abusing them, making them feel unattractive by essentially telling them that they are and then preying upon that distress that you have caused.
    "The chase" has long been a part of romantic relationships, The Rules seeks to make the whole relationship up until the wedding day "the chase". It's foolish but it's different.

    I suppose we'll agree to disagree. The men that will "chase" a woman up to her wedding day while she works through 'the rules' rather than walk pretty much off the bat are the girls that'll jump into bed with guys as they work through PUA rather than tell them to piss off. Both things are effective against emotionally vulnerable people, for the same reasons, and seek to exploit those vulnerabilities for personal gain.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I think you completely misunderstood the post you are replying to. It didn't say sex was to be for procreational purposes only, you know - or anything like that.
    Absolutely, thanks. I think they know that too. Completely ludicrous way to interpret my post.
    "does this get the rides in or not? If it does I doubt he or his customers give two sheets whether the methods are "questionable" or not."
    It's completely obvious what I'm referring to as depressing. I notice again more downplaying of putting one's hand around someone's throat and saying "sh..." and pushing someone's head into one's crotch.


  • #403
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I think you completely misunderstood the post you are replying to. It didn't say sex was to be for procreational purposes only, you know - or anything like that.

    The issue is with manipulating other people into doing what you want them to, against their own better judgment, and the sex aspect of it is only the motivation in this case. If it were for monetary gain I would have exactly the same objections. Does that make me anti-money in some way?
    Nope, it was an on the money riposte.
    You seem to think that bargaining for sex is in some way fundamentally different from bargaining for any other goods or services. It isn't. The PUA is simply trying to codify the methods.


  • #404
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    I notice again more downplaying of putting one's hand around someone's throat and saying "sh..." and pushing someone's head into one's crotch.
    Which I made no reference at all to and yet you are now inventing I did.
    Ironic that you are whining that I didn't "get" your post when you fabricate responses from me wholesale!


  • #405
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,118 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Nope, it was an on the money riposte.
    You seem to think that bargaining for sex is in some way fundamentally different from bargaining for any other goods or services. It isn't. The PUA is simply trying to codify the methods.

    OK, in that case it's really a waste of money then, since there has been a well-codified method for aeons, it's called prostitution. If you have the same approach to all female contact, I'm not surprised you need outside help to succeed!

    Try treating a woman as a person, with her own interests and personality, it will work infinitely better than adapting usual techniques for approaching a prostitute.

    You're welcome by the way - Or you can just send me a small voluntary contribution for that advice. :-)

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #406
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    volchitsa wrote: »
    OK, in that case it's really a waste of money then, since there has been a well-codified method for aeons, it's called prostitution. If you have the same approach to all female contact, I'm not surprised you need outside help to succeed!
    Doing just fine here on that front thanks. I never said I used any of the PUA methods, but thanks for inventing yet more things that I have apparently said, you are quite imaginative.
    You think prostitution is the same as using as employing a "system" to chat up women? That doesn't even approach making sense.

    Rather embarrassingly, you seem to think that men use chat up lines with prostitutes? Did you look up the word "prostitute" before you started posting here?


  • #407
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Nope, it was an on the money riposte.
    It really really wasn't. You said:
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Depressing for who? People who can't get laid?
    I just find it incredibly puritanical to think that in 2014 people aren't allowed to have sex because, OMG, they like it. Nope, apparently it still has to conform to some higher moral purpose.
    I haven't said, implied or even thought anything even slightly along the lines of the above. I was referring to the way you said people aren't going to give a sh-t about what his methods (which is what I am objecting to) are once they hit the jackpot.
    How someone could interpret that as "not allowing people to have sex merely because they enjoy it" is truly beyond me. :confused:
    The world would be a better place if people had sex simply because they enjoy it and removed their hang-ups, and without the tips of a misogynistic narcissist.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Which I made no reference at all to and yet you are now inventing I did.
    Ironic that you are whining that I didn't "get" your post when you fabricate responses from me wholesale!
    That's right - telling you your interpretation of my post was utterly bizarre = whining. I view you as downplaying Blanc's behaviour on the basis of the following comments by you:
    "I doubt he or his customers give two sheets whether the methods are "questionable" or not."
    "As an aside, "questionable" means nothing really unless we're told what the question is."
    Apologies if I've misinterpreted you.


  • #408
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,118 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Doing just fine here on that front thanks. I never said I used any of the PUA methods, but thanks for inventing yet more things that I have apparently said, you are quite imaginative.
    You think prostitution is the same as using as employing a "system" to chat up women? That doesn't even approach making sense.

    You're the one who said "bargaining for sex". Nw you claim you just mean chatting up women. Apparently you only talk to women as a way of bargaining for sex, in which case what difference would you make art prostitution? Because I genuinely can't see much difference going by your description just now.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #409
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    It really really wasn't. You said:
    You have still failed utterly to inform us all of who exactly the PUA's methods working are "depressing" to.
    It's you, right?


  • #410
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,118 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Doing just fine here on that front thanks. I never said I used any of the PUA methods, but thanks for inventing yet more things that I have apparently said, you are quite imaginative.
    You think prostitution is the same as using as employing a "system" to chat up women? That doesn't even approach making sense.

    Rather embarrassingly, you seem to thing that men use chat up lines with prostitutes? Did you look up the word "prostitute" before you started posting here?

    I was replying to a post which didn't mention "chat up lines" but it did mention "bargaining for sex". But no matter : if a chat up line is actually "bargaining for sex", then it's basically a roundabout way of asking the woman how much she'll do it for - no?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #411
    TheBeardedLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I'm not saying the women are to blame for falling for it and I'm not saying that the methods are nice or not manipulative.
    What I am saying is that instead of solely focusing on trying to discourage PUA it would be better to focus on the woman that it actually works on too.
    AFAIK none of the PUA stuff is actually new techniques and some guys act that way naturally, if a woman is supsceptible to a manipulative approach she would end up with a "natural" dickhead anyway even if the PUA stuff didn't exist.
    Ask a bunch of your girl friends if they dated some assholes or well older guys between 17 to 22 or so and I bet you a good number will agree and this happened anyway before PUA was popular.

    Can't disagree with any of the above.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You're the one who said "bargaining for sex". Nw you claim you just mean chatting up women. Apparently you only talk to women as a way of bargaining for sex, in which case what difference would you make art prostitution? Because I genuinely can't see much difference going by your description just now.
    Bollix, I never said anything close to that. More fantasyland responses.
    Saying chatting up a woman to try and bed is bargaining doesn't mean:
    1. It's bargaining with cash.
    2. It is the only thing you can talk to a woman about.
    Pretty basic logic really.


  • #413
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I was replying to a post which didn't mention "chat up lines" but it did mention "bargaining for sex". But no matter : if a chat up line is actually "bargaining for sex", then it's basically a roundabout way of asking the woman how much she'll do it for - no?
    You're the one who's attaching monetary values to every transaction. Bit hung up on prostitution for some reason?


  • #414
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    You have still failed utterly to inform us all of who exactly the PUA's methods working are "depressing" to.
    It's you, right?
    Different question now. Well yeh, me, and anyone else who's not a fan of a misogynistic narcissist's tips. Should I inform you "all"? Thought it was fairly obvious.


  • #415
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    Different question now. Well yeh, me, and anyone else who's not a fan of a misogynistic narcissist's tips. Should I inform you "all"? Thought it was fairly obvious.
    I apologise if facing more than one question is difficult for you.
    So you and nobody really, unless you think you can invent a group of people and claim to speak on their behalf?


  • #416
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So you and nobody really, unless you think you can invent a group of people and claim to speak on their behalf?
    What on earth is your aggression for? :confused:
    I said tactics like Blanc's, and people being happy to resort to such tactics = depressing. Can you tell me what's unreasonable about that?
    I know others feel that way too seeing as it's all over the media and social media that people feel that way.
    You just look like you're trying really hard to find something to get angry about in what I'm saying.


  • #417
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,926 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    You're the one who's attaching monetary values to every transaction. Bit hung up on prostitution for some reason?


    You're constantly shifting the focus of the argument in an attempt to make other posters out to be irrational. It's a rather juvenile discussion tactic, but really that's to be expected when the sum of your argument is "Well you started it!", when in fact, no, the other poster didn't -

    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Nope, it was an on the money riposte.
    You seem to think that bargaining for sex is in some way fundamentally different from bargaining for any other goods or services. It isn't. The PUA is simply trying to codify the methods.


    Instead of telling other posters what you think they think, it might make the discussion easier to read if you yourself read what they wrote, instead of some futile attempt at displaying how clever you perceive yourself to be, and how dumb everyone else must be in comparison.


  • #418
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    What on earth is your aggression for? :confused:
    I said tactics like Blanc's, and people being happy to resort to such tactics = depressing. Can you tell me what's unreasonable about that?
    I know others feel that way too seeing as it's all over the media and social media that people feel that way.
    You just look like you're trying really hard to find something to get angry about in what I'm saying.
    Lose argument. Claim aggression. 0/10 for originality.
    I'm the one looking for things to get upset about? Really?


  • #419
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Lose argument. Claim aggression. 0/10 for originality.
    I'm the one looking for things to get upset about? Really?
    How am I "losing" the argument? How are you not being aggressive? You're being hostile to people and twisting their words... for no reason.
    :confused:


  • #420
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You're constantly shifting the focus of the argument in an attempt to make other posters out to be irrational. It's a rather juvenile discussion tactic, but really that's to be expected when the sum of your argument is "Well you started it!", when in fact, no, the other poster didn't -.
    Pity you have not been capable of showing where this happened.
    Was the discussion too complex for you, so you just slopped out a general insult against a "type" of person?
    Hell, I thought that showing someone else's argument was irrational was one way of winning an argument, but you've really shown me, haven't you?


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    How am I "losing" the argument? How are you not being aggressive? You're being hostile to people and twisting their words... for no reason.
    :confused:
    Oh, so you had no opinion that was open for debate, my apologies.
    Sheesh.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement