Julien Blanc gets destroyed in CNN interview

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Pity you have not been capable of showing where this happened.

Nobody had mentioned anything about morality in this thread when you threw in this little misguided agenda covered curveball -

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'd say that was definitely you looking for something to get upset about, that again - nobody had actually tried to argue. We call that a strawman fallacy.

Was the discussion too complex for you, so you just slopped out a general insult against a "type" of person?

The discussion wasn't complicated at all until you started throwing out all sorts of nonsense talk frankly. And yes, I'd have to agree with other posters who find your posting style aggressive and unnecessary. You've yet to actually make a point rather than simply attacking posters who are making legitimate points and contributing positively to the discussion.

Slopping out general insults against certain "types" of people seems to me more your area of expertise given how you assume that because someone finds PUA depressing, the corollary is that they must have issues with people having sex?

Are you familiar with the concept of nuanced argument, or is it too complicated for you to understand that just because I too find PUA a depressing ideology practiced by pathetic individuals, it doesn't mean that I have something against people having sex. It simply means I find PUA contemptible nonsense that keeps men developmentally and socially stunted.

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?

See? You just did it again. I said you were trying to make out the person was irrational, rather than actually address their opinion that you disagree with which seems to have upset you and drawn you into the discussion. I have no interest in showing you anything either, we're a little old for that aren't we?

Laura Palmer wrote: »

I called you aggressive for being... aggressive towards me for absolutely nothing.
You also posted a bizarre misquote in relation to something I wrote. Is it ok for you to do that though?

In a similar fashion, he got very hostile to me for pointing out that the term "bargaining for sex" usually applies to prostitution - but if he meant something else, he made no attempt at actually explaining what difference he sees.

I've clearly hit a nerve, and I suspect it is the CNS of the whole Julien Blanc method - that women are basically all whores anyway.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, the usual guff about posting style blah blah. If ever there was a sign that people know they've got nothing this is it.
Still no explanation as to where I said bargaining for sex equated to prostitution, or even any explanation as to how this could be true.
Still no explanation as to where I said all conversations with women were about getting sex, or even any explanation as to how this could be true.
But hey, call him aggressive for defending himself against completely fabricated misquotation and we'll see does that work instead, eh?

Bargaining for sex is the essence of prostitution. You're trading something in return for sexual favours. In the case of PUA you're pretty much trading any dignity and respect you have for yourself in return for sexual favours. The problem with that though, is that the currency you're using - attraction, is not a commonly agreed currency, and therefore it carries no value.

With regard to having conversations with women that lead to sex, is that not the whole point of PUA? Trying to pretend it isn't is just as dishonest as PUA itself. Dress it up however you like, but at the end of the day all it actually comes down to is teaching young heterosexual men... actually I'm not quite sure how to finish that sentence as in my opinion it teaches young heterosexual men absolutely nothing.

Despite how many of it's proponents suggest that there's nothing wrong with it, there's fcukall right about it either, and nothing beneficial in it for either men nor women. Billy86 posted a mere snippet of the kind of stuff RSD espouses (as my mother always said - always leave them wanting more!) and that's the thing - you really have to immerse yourself in all this stuff from all these different 'gurus' and you have to drill it and live it and practice it and all the rest of it. That's why they make all this stuff out to be some big elusive 'secret', because they know this instantly makes it more attractive to socially stunted men who feel like they're missing out on What everyone else is getting, and the "I'll show them who's top dog!" immature mentality sets in, and is reinforced by PUA.

You were being unnecessarily aggressive and you weren't defending yourself against anything, you were attacking people based on your misguided representation of their posts and having twisted them, you could then query that instead. That's why your assertions were making no sense. Quit playing the poor little me card, you came out on the attack, and you were simply informed that people could see through your tactics, and they weren't impressed. Naturally of course you're not going to like that, but there's no need to get aggressive about it.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, you're the one with a fixation on prostitutes here, not me. If you can't understand that "bargaining" need not necessarily mean haggling over monetary price, than this entire conversation is beyond you.

So why don't you explain what you mean then?

Prostitution needn't only involve money anyway - some prostitutes get paid in presents, and many have been known to prostitute themselves for food or medicine. So yes, to me, the term "bargaining for sex" implies some form of reward for sex, instead of there being a personal relationship. That is also a definition I'd be fairly comfortable with for prostitution.

The other place where "bargaining for sex" would come into things is in some sort of deeply unhealthy couples relationship, "you don't get sex until you've painted the living walls" example I gave upthread. Again, no money involved, but a form of prostitution nevertheless, IMO.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, you have now decided that any and all approaches for affection of any sort are prostitution. You need to check your dictionary.

No. Sex in exchange for inducements is prostitution.

http://thelawdictionary.org/prostitution/
Common lewdness; whoredom; the act or practice of a woman who permits any man who will pay her price to have sexual intercourse with her.

Law Dictionary: What is PROSTITUTION? definition of PROSTITUTION (Black's Law Dictionary)

No mention of money.

Or here http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prostitution
The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment:

By the way, why do you refer to affection, when you actually mean sexual intercourse? Do you really think the words are synonymous? I don't think they are, not with someone who is talking about "bargaining for sex".
A while ago you were calling it "getting the rides in" - at least that was honest.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What cobblers. In that case every single approach by a man to a woman (or even vice versa) is in your eyes prostitution. Why are you guys so insistent that "bargaining" automatically implies payment? That's your hang up, not mine.

Why are you so insistent on playing the "me no understando inglese" card? It's plain and simple english -

Bargaining - you have something I want, and I have something you want, now how much is either of us willing to give the other to get it. I'll give it to you if you pay me enough for it. That's payment involved in bargaining, and as Laura points out, it doesn't always have to be money exchanging hands. I take it you're not a complete dullard, so you DO understand the concept, but you're just unwilling to accept anyone else's point without adding your own special twist. That, I'm afraid, is your hang-up, and yours alone.

It may be the whole point of PUA, but that's irrelevant now isn't it since I was told that I thought EVERY conversation with a woman is just to get sex, which I never said and there's still an embarrassing silence on getting backed up with a quote. Please don't lie by pretending what was put to me was only concerning PUA.

Appealing to anyone not to lie to you while you're trying to say there's nothing wrong with lying to people to manipulate them in the hope they'll offer you sexual favours? Stop that :pac:

No, seriously, I was only ever talking about PUA, despite your persistent attempts to distract from the discussion and then claim you're being picked on and you have to defend yourself. Poor you, my heart bleeds :rolleyes:

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Ok, "daily" and "similar" are the words that are making me ask wtf?

Please don't say looking nice, because if you take that to its logical conclusion women should therefore ensure to wear a baggy tracksuit pants and baggy t-shirt and no make-up and no bra and just runners at all times in order not to be manipulative.

Yep, women can go to massive lengths to alter the way the look, right down to undergoing surgery.

I'm not saying that, the posters here who are anti-PUA are the ones that are insisting that men shouldn't attempt to improve their personalities while being totally ignorant of the fact women do the exact same to their appearance (many times also altering their personalities too).

If you don't want men to alter themselves, if you're not being hypercritical you'd feel the same about women.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yep, women can go to massive lengths to alter the way the look, right down to undergoing surgery.

....

If you don't want men to alter themselves, if you're not being hypercritical you'd feel the same about women.

Where I have a problem with the whole PUA thing is when it's not about men altering themselves, it's the negging stuff and so on - that is about manipulating other people's feelings, and is completely different to dressing up, make up and so on, which is about making yourself look nice. That's what all animals do in mating rituals. It would be OTT to compare that to making someone else feel bad about themselves.

Altering your own personality is, IMO, pretty much impossible. All they do is alter how they present themselves, and anything more fundamental than that is just deception and is harder to carry off than some people seem to think.