The popularity and ethics of PUAs and similar communities

ancapailldorcha · 06-02-2015 11:35AM

nokia69 wrote: »

but most men don't like "fat chicks" or women with "curves" most men don't like skinny women either

just because BBW porn exists can't change that fact

Well, some do. If it's a number as small as 2% of men then that's still a fair few guys. The fact that such a market exists evinces this.

Wibbs · 06-02-2015 02:33PM

nokia69 wrote: »

divorce is still new in Ireland,

It's been on the books for twenty years N. It's hardly new.

we might not have reached the stage where 50% of marriages end badly but we will get there soon enough

The half of all marriage end in divorce is a myth, albeit a pervasive one and an American one. In America the supposed land of the 50% divorce rate, it's actually much lower than that. The rate also depends on quite the number of variable. Age f first marriage(younger people are more likely to divorce), whether it's a first, second or third marriage(the odds go up with each successive walk down the aisle), education level(the more educated tend to stay together more) etc.

but most men don't like "fat chicks" or women with "curves"

And right there is the problem. Never mind the diet industry and women's fashions, men's definition of "fat" and "curvy" varies all over the place. One guy might see size 14 as average(which it kinda is), another might see the same sized woman as fat, another might see her as curvy. Sure size 20, or size 4 are obvious and would have a smaller attraction demographic(though the 20 would have more), but around the average is very much up for grabs.

FURET · 06-02-2015 04:39PM

I'm conscious of the fact that one does not enter into a debate with Wibbs lightly, as the man can out-type Commander Data, so I'll just say this:

When Aaron Clarey states that women are terrible with finances and you take him up on that, you're actually taking the quote out of context. He explicitly says that women who've majored in science, technology, accounting and math are worth their weight in gold. It's the other kind of women - the Early Childhood Studies, hyperconsumerist types, who he advises to stay clear of. And he's dead right.

I've no dog in this fight. I'm married to a sexy accountant who does our monthly budgets on Excel while wearing lingerie and thick-rimmed glasses. I don't take his advice because I'm not his target audience. But I agree with much of it.

I have no interest in Clarey's political videos, but when he gives advice about women, finance and careers, he is spot on. Yes - some of it does not apply to the Irish male - but those bits are glaringly obvious; much of the rest speaks to universal principles.

Also - it's true the man is an advocate of minimalism. But he does not advise men to live in caves. He himself is an avid biker, hiker, and storm-chaser. He totally advises guys to get hobbies. He just urges them to not waste money on stupid, consumerist crap, and to watch out for women who do. And again, he's right imo.

Wibbs · 06-02-2015 05:57PM

FURET wrote: »

When Aaron Clarey states that women are terrible with finances and you take him up on that, you're actually taking the quote out of context. He explicitly says that women who've majored in science, technology, accounting and math are worth their weight in gold. It's the other kind of women - the Early Childhood Studies, hyperconsumerist types, who he advises to stay clear of. And he's dead right.

Sure, it's best to avoid idiots full stop, or as Aaron would say period. However it's not gender based. Take personal debt as an example(US stats but since he's in said US...), men tend to carry more debt, have higher mortgages and use more of their credit limit than women. Not exactly being prudent. Even so the differences were small. Other studies that reverse such findings again have very small gender differences so what one might conclude form that is overall men and women are about on par with regard to personal finances. On top of which in families women are much more likely to be in charge of day to day spending and budgeting(and have been even since before feminism) hence advertisers target them far more, so there are more women dealing with family finances than men(and how many of them are hard finance and science types as the same Clarey reckons "women do carp course in college).

TL;DR? There is little or no difference between the genders when it comes to personal finance, prudent people will be prudent and profligates will be profligate, regardless of the location of their gonads.

strobe · 06-02-2015 07:57PM

Is he not just being deliberately over the top for comedic effect? I don't know. Haven't read the book(s) or know anything about the guy. That was just my first thought on reading the quotes.

Wibbs · 06-02-2015 08:29PM

Oh that's well possible S, though it can be hard to tell with some American folks as they can be a bit more exaggerated in expression a culture than we might be. As KomradeBishop remarked the problem comes with people taking this kinda thing seriously, at face value and by "osmosis". IE the 50% divorce rate/Women are absolutely horrible at managing finances/Most girls major in stupid shít etc and getting a mass belief going on. Beliefs that are either demonstrably false or half truths. And that's just as daft as much of the patriarchy/rape culture feminist stuff. The men's headspace really doesn't need to be copying that flavour of nonsense.

lazybones32 · 07-02-2015 06:53PM

strobe wrote: »

How many short, weak, insecure, assholes that ignore women and treat them like **** that are single by choice?

How many tall, strong, confident, cocky, extroverted guys that never treat women like **** do you know that struggle to get with girls?

Some women will put up with being ignored and treated like **** by a tall, strong, confident guy the same way some guys will get with and stay with an absolutely horrendous thundering bitch that treats them like crap because they've a great body and a pretty face.

But in both instances it's usually a case of them putting up with being treated like crap because of the other desirable features the person has coupled with their own issues.

Implying to guys that aren't tall, strong, confident, cocky, take charge go getters that women will want them more if they treat them like **** is such horrendous advice that is so astronomically wide of the mark that it's very hard not to take it as parody when it's put out there.

A minority of men and women will put up with being treated like **** by someone that has other quite attractive qualities. And a much much smaller minority of people actually want to be treated like **** on some level because their brains are so scrambled for a number of reasons. But the vast majority won't and don't.

There's also an inter-galactically dimensioned gulf filled with points on a scale between 'treating people like ****' and 'being spineless and letting everyone walk all over you at every opportunity'. Some people can't seem to grasp that. It's not one or the other and most people by a massive margin find both a massive turn off, men and women both.

Women by and large don't want a guy that will simper after them, agreeing with everything they say and never expressing their own opinions and desires. But neither do they want or go for assholes that ignore them and treat them like ****, all things being equal.

The whole nonsense is born in a large part out of guys that don't do well with women wanting to look down both on the guys that do and the women they do well with. 'The guys are all horrible people, and the girls are all stupid and crazy and want to be treated horribly. I'm better than both, therefore. They deserve each other." And visa versa when you switch the genders and apply it to women that think "men go for bitches". It's not grounded in, or reflected by, the real world. It's ego shielding fantasy.

You got all that from one line?! I'm glad you didn't decide to respond to everything I wrote...

I must be missing something though. You took one line I wrote - ignoring before and after - and jumped on the soap box. Is your issue with "treating women like sh*t" in order to get with them or is it because I asked how many cocky men, who use women, are single by choice? I genuinely don't get the point you're making...

strobe · 08-02-2015 02:13AM

lazybones32 wrote: »

You got all that from one line?! I'm glad you didn't decide to respond to everything I wrote...

I must be missing something though. You took one line I wrote - ignoring before and after - and jumped on the soap box. Is your issue with "treating women like sh*t" in order to get with them or is it because I asked how many cocky men, who use women, are single by choice? I genuinely don't get the point you're making...

I only had a point to make about that one part of your post. So I only replied to that one part. I truncated the rest of the post as it was irrelevant to the point I was making and the part I was replying to.
I'm not sure how I could make the point any clearer. Is there something specific in it where you aren't sure of what I'm saying? I felt it was fairly drawn out and was expanded upon as much as it could be, so if you don't get it you don't get it, I think. I don't think I could expand upon it or clarify it further. But I'll try if you have something in particular you want to ask about.

lazybones32 · 08-02-2015 12:39PM

strobe wrote: »

I only had a point to make about that one part of your post. So I only replied to that one part. I truncated the rest of the post as it was irrelevant to the point I was making and the part I was replying to.
I'm not sure how I could make the point any clearer. Is there something specific in it where you aren't sure of what I'm saying? I felt it was fairly drawn out and was expanded upon as much as it could be, so if you don't get it you don't get it, I think. I don't think I could expand upon it or clarify it further. But I'll try if you have something in particular you want to ask about.

I had my own ideas of where you were going with it but I wanted you to clarify, so I don't make assumptions. It seemed like I was being lectured because of one sentence which was deliberately removed from its context.

"Like it or not, it seems to be true. How many cocky, extrovert, ar$eholes do you know who is single by choice? Women seem to feed off their energy or something but it is definitely a blind-spot."

I hate linking but this warrants it:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Why-do-women-always-fall-for-the-bad-boy/articleshow/23891958.cms
these are just two I pulled from a G**gle search; there are better out there.

Now, what does the linking of these articles mean? Am I suggesting that to be successful with women, a man should adopt these characteristics or am I simply pointing out that women are very often drawn to these traits?

Wibbs · 08-02-2015 01:11PM

My personal wacky I should really be in a rubber room theory? Modern humans(sapiens sapiens, so cocky we named it twice) have undergone a form of self domestication in the last say 50,000 years. In quite the number of ways modern humans look(and I suspect act) like "domesticated" versions of pervious humans(more lightly built, more variability in phenotype, flatter faces, size reduced dentition, play throughout life, less xenophobic etc).

Anyhoo, in my I should really be in a rubber room theory women are major drivers of this process, by both sexual selection and social engineering. They select for more "domesticated" men in general. However "bad boys", less domesticated so to speak men, are a powerful draw for many because they plug into this drive to tone down such men for the wider human society. How often do you hear "I thought I could/I can change him"? It's quite the common thing. Look at romantic fiction aimed at women. A helluva lot of it contains the wild Heathcliff type bloke that by the heroines love and guidance becomes a more balanced member of society and that stuff is multicultural with it. Mills and Boon is translated into damn near every language on the planet and read by french as well as Saudi women. It runs very deep. Hell look at how many actual murdering psychos in prison get fan mail and offers of marriage. That would be the extreme end of this notion. It's also age related. Bad boys are more attractive for young women as young men with higher levels of testosterone are more likely to be "wilder"(as crime stats show) and many have had a temporary phase of going for that kinda man when young. It's less a thing for women beyond say 30, where they expect/want the more toned down guy. By that stage their "work is done" kinda thing. He may be less day to day emotionally exciting but he's far less emotionally draining and more reliable. Your red pill/PUA types see this in Alpha/Beta terms but I think it's far more subtle than that.

Now obviously humans are a very complex species with crazy levels of grey going on so the above is a very general thing, but I think it has some legs to it.

the evasion_kid · 08-02-2015 01:28PM

My own experience of it(a painful one at times) I've been on both sides of this coin,the nice guy in my younger years not as some kind of front it just who I was and later on the bad guy,I'll let you's guess which produced the better results,I'd be that confident in it that if god himself descended down and told me any different my laughter would probably startle every bird from the trees within a hundred mile radius

lazybones32 · 08-02-2015 02:48PM

Wibbs wrote: »

How often do you hear "I thought I could/I can change him"?

A female friend actually said "I'll have to change that about him" when referring to her boyfriends drinking habits. It's just in their nature, I guess. An American poster on a different forum summed his experience as ' she tried and tried to change me and then hated what I'd become'.

Wibbs wrote: »

It's also age related.

I thought PUA's were mainly focused on the 18-25 bracket? Older and attached women are far less likely to fall for the emotional rollercoaster but none the less, they enjoy being desired after and having someone expressing sexual interest in them (who doesn't?)

Next thread will be about the ethics of chasing 'Cougars' and 'MILFS'?

As an alternative to PUA from www.youramazingbrain.org ...

"And finally … how to fall in love
Find a complete stranger.
Reveal to each other intimate details about your lives for half an hour.
Then, stare deeply into each other’s eyes without talking for four minutes.

York psychologist, Professor Arthur Arun, has been studying why people fall in love.
He asked his subjects to carry out the above 3 steps and found that many of his couples felt deeply attracted after the 34 minute experiment. Two of his subjects later got married."

Fukuyama · 08-02-2015 04:18PM

I think this thread is delving way to deep into the psychological aspect of PUA tactics when we should look at the psychological profile of the average PUA : likely a walking bag of insecurities who attaches his self worth to how many women he can get into bed. He's not after women with a certain hip ratio. Nor is he after women with blond hair because it reminds his internal caveman that she's young and fertile. He's after women who themselves are insecure and likely attach their own self worth to how many men chat them up.

The ethical debate is a little moot. So long as they're both consenting adults then I don't see any ethical problem. People manipulate others every single day whether is a compliment to their boss or a sly insult to a sibling.

PUA **** won't work on the majority of women. Most of the women I know are quite confident and would laugh off a 'negging' tactic at the first pass.

I would call PUA losers but I can kind of see how it's easy to get sucked in to it. Most young men want sex. Simple as. If someone doesn't have a healthy view of women and is feeling lonely, he's easy prey for the SEO masters that run these websites/blogs/books.

Fukuyama · 08-02-2015 04:33PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Your red pill/PUA types see this in Alpha/Beta terms but I think it's far more subtle than that.

Young men might have slightly more testosterone but they also have a **** load of insecurities. I reckon all the young ladies going for "bad guys" are actually riddled with insecurities themselves.

I can think of several women who went with idiots, criminals, assholes etc... All of them had huge hangups when it came to their appearance (even though most were good looking), intelligence, self worth etc... These young relationships eventually self destruct, people get over their **** in their 20s and find a confident partner in their 30s. As we've hashed out before on another thread a 30 year old man has much the same testosterone as a 20 year old, so I think it's the confidence that comes with age (or rather, experience).

I think it's this confidence that PUA types try to emulate but none of them want to go get the experience. They're encouraged to act confident when in reality any confident woman would see through their flashy car, TK Maxx designer shirt and 'wet look' hair gel.

The whole PUA scene should be eclipsed and replaced by "not giving a **** what other people think of you scene". Confidence is quiet and all that.

Fukuyama · 08-02-2015 05:20PM

Saddo obsessive PUA rereg post snipped

It really doesn't. It might work with a lot of women who drink themselves into oblivion on a night out and crave attention. I think you're mistaking a good success rate with a segment as a good success rate with a population.

I've looked into PUA over the years. The entire thing is geared towards masking your insecurities and being, as your put it, "edgy" and "ballsy". That's not confidence.

To me, confidence is being able to interact with 50% of the population without needing an edge, 'balls' or an entire community devoted to spilling out literature to back up your tactics.

I'm not claiming to be great with women. I'm sure PUA types get laid more than me. But I don't think I could be happy with myself if I went around dimly lit clubs with a masquerade of false confidence, 'negging' on women and in the hopes they might find me "alpha" enough to have empty, average sex with.

I've no doubt that women are attracted to men who are more masculine. The difference is that these blokes are just going about their daily business as opposed to obsessing over women. A good example would be lifting weights. Some blokes love to lift. It's a lifestyle when you really get into it. The buzz and confidence they get from the sport (along with the obvious body improvements) is attractive. Then we have the fake tan, brylcreem boys who life to get "swole" and attract the girls. They'll likely attract women with as many 'issues' as they have.

Saddo obsessive PUA rereg post snipped

You can't just decide to not give a ****. You might pretend but deep down you still do. If you genuinely didn't give a **** what people thought of you then you wouldn't need PUA.

Henry9 · 08-02-2015 07:03PM

I think some of the anti PUAers are as bad as the obsessive 'gamers', keen to display their own lack of need for it.
I read some of the early stuff, much of it was very American, but there were some kernels of truth in amongst the dross.

You will actually get some of the anti crowd giving exactly the same advice on other threads, where the conversation is in a different context.
And if you read between the lines on some threads in TLL you would glean a similar approach to some things.

Of course the marketing of it is stupid, it has to be to get guys to part with their cash. 9 out of 10 will see through it, 1 will get out his credit card.
In fact it's an extension of their approach to women, better that 9 women think you're a d1ck and 1 wants to fcuk you.
It's not aimed at well adjusted or secure women.

Some guys have the right behaviours from an early age, whether learned or not. Most don't, and some are so off the right wavelength they need a 'cheat sheet' to get them through it.

It doesn't make them 'losers', they're just aware of being on the outside looking in.
It might be insecurity or social retardation or whatever, but try posting in TLL that women who can't meet someone out of shyness or insecurity or whatever are 'losers' or '****' and let me know how you get on.

BlatentCheek · 08-02-2015 07:52PM

Brilliant thread I certainly didn't expect to read about the Koch brothers when I opened it.

I did expect to find a fair amount of offensive quotes from PUAers but by a country mile the most offensive stuff was in that Guardian article - such vitriol towards unattractive men and triumphant crowing about shutting down viewpoints the writer doesn't approve of is deeply concerning in such an eminent newspaper.

Ethically I have no real problem with PUA the mainstream of which seems to be reasonable from a gender ethics perspective. inevitably it has a misogynist/lunatic fringe but you could say the same about most beliefs shared by a large group of people.

I knew one guy doing it and while he was a bit of a gob****e I can see why some people would be into it. It's just pulling techniques on steroids and is little worse than the older (often nonsensical) books of dating advice. The anti-PUA movement seems at least as bad as what it criticises and often displays a worrying misandry.

tritium · 08-02-2015 09:06PM

BlatentCheek wrote: »

Brilliant thread I certainly didn't expect to read about the Koch brothers when I opened it.

I did expect to find a fair amount of offensive quotes from PUAers but by a country mile the most offensive stuff was in that Guardian article - such vitriol towards unattractive men and triumphant crowing about about shutting down viewpoints the writer doesn't approve of is deeply concerning in such an eminent newspaper.

Ethically I have no real problem with PUA the mainstream of which seems to be reasonable from a gender ethics perspective. inevitably it has a misogynist/lunatic fringe but you could say the same about most beliefs shared by a large group of people.

I knew one guy doing it and while he was a bit of a gob****e I can see why some people would be into it. It's just pulling techniques on steroids and is little worse than the older (often nonsensical) books of dating advice. The anti-PUA movement seems at least as bad as what it criticises and often displays a worrying misandry.

^^^ pretty much sums it up. Not much new in it, some useful bits, some extremists at the fringes. Pretty much like most other groupings really.

(Apart from describing the guardian as an eminent newspaper

ego tripping toilet roll seems a better description)

BlatentCheek · 08-02-2015 09:44PM

tritium wrote: »

(Apart from describing the guardian as an eminent newspaper ego tripping toilet roll seems a better description)

In general I agree, and the Comment Is Free section in particular is packed with the sort of narrow-minded, dogmatic, right-on nonsense that serves to turn normal people away from the left. However its news coverage is occasionally (not consistently) excellent and things like its coverage of NSA data snooping are of sufficient import for it still to be considered "eminent" - just about. It should have stayed in Manchester TBH.

ancapailldorcha · 08-02-2015 09:45PM

BlatentCheek wrote: »

In general I agree, and the Comment Is Free section in particular is packed with the sort of narrow-minded, dogmatic, right-on nonsense that serves to turn normal people away from the left. However its news coverage is occasionally (not consistently) excellent and things like its coverage of NSA data snooping are of sufficient import for it still to be considered "eminent" - just about. It should have stayed in Manchester TBH.

Love it or loathe it, it's the best of a very poor bunch.

BlatentCheek · 08-02-2015 09:56PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Love it or loathe it, it's the best of a very poor bunch.

The FT is much better. Online outfits offer a wider range of thought, and increasingly superior writing and analysis. Much like the Irish Times in Ireland the Guardian seems a bit rudderless.

ancapailldorcha · 08-02-2015 10:56PM

BlatentCheek wrote: »

The FT is much better. Online outfits offer a wider range of thought, and increasingly superior writing and analysis. Much like the Irish Times in Ireland the Guardian seems a bit rudderless.

The Financial Times? Can't use their website without a subscription sadly. The Guardian just launched an appeal asking people to join (for a fee) to help them stay independent.

strobe · 08-02-2015 11:03PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

I had my own ideas of where you were going with it but I wanted you to clarify, so I don't make assumptions. It seemed like I was being lectured because of one sentence which was deliberately removed from its context.

"Like it or not, it seems to be true. How many cocky, extrovert, ar$eholes do you know who is single by choice? Women seem to feed off their energy or something but it is definitely a blind-spot."

I hate linking but this warrants it:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Why-do-women-always-fall-for-the-bad-boy/articleshow/23891958.cms
these are just two I pulled from a G**gle search; there are better out there.

Now, what does the linking of these articles mean? Am I suggesting that to be successful with women, a man should adopt these characteristics or am I simply pointing out that women are very often drawn to these traits?

I wasn't trying to lecture you or anything, and didn't remove anything from it's context, the post in it's entirety was a couple of posts above from mine, hardly the fraud of the century, you seem to think I was taking some kind of pot shot at you or something, I wasn't. The post wasn't even meant to be addressed to you specifically, just addressing the point/sentiment I quoted and giving my opinion.

You'd have to answer the concluding questions of your post yourself, I've no interest in trying to second guess your thought process.

Gits_bone · 09-02-2015 10:16AM

Dean0088 wrote: »

profile of the average PUA : likely a walking bag of insecurities who attaches his self worth to how many women he can get into bed. He's not after women with a certain hip ratio. Nor is he after women with blond hair because it reminds his internal caveman that she's young and fertile. He's after women who themselves are insecure and likely attach their own self worth to how many men chat them up.

A bit snobbish and stereotypical tbh.

All you're saying is ...average profile...likely is...

Sounds like you're just drawing up an image of a person who's a PUA rather than basing anything on facts.

newport2 · 09-02-2015 10:22AM

FURET wrote: »

I've no dog in this fight. I'm married to a sexy accountant who does our monthly budgets on Excel while wearing lingerie and thick-rimmed glasses. I don't take his advice because I'm not his target audience. But I agree with much of it.

Your husband does your monthly budgets in lingerie and thick-rimmed glasses? I hope that's not why you don't take his advice....

Pat Mustard · 09-02-2015 11:20AM

Mod:

New users; please do not post on this thread until you have been registered for at least 10 days and until you have a post count of at least twenty.

FURET · 09-02-2015 11:48AM

newport2 wrote: »

Your husband does your monthly budgets in lingerie and thick-rimmed glasses? I hope that's not why you don't take his advice....

The "his" refers to Aaron Clarey

lazybones32 · 10-02-2015 05:40PM

strobe wrote: »

I wasn't trying to lecture you or anything, and didn't remove anything from it's context, the post in it's entirety was a couple of posts above from mine, hardly the fraud of the century, you seem to think I was taking some kind of pot shot at you or something, I wasn't. The post wasn't even meant to be addressed to you specifically, just addressing the point/sentiment I quoted and giving my opinion.

You'd have to answer the concluding questions of your post yourself, I've no interest in trying to second guess your thought process.

Slight misunderstanding on my part then: apologies.
Usually when someone takes a sentence and changes one or two words, it is often done as an attempt to ridicule, inflame or antagonise. I noticed you made no specific address towards me, so that's why I asked you to clarify if there was a point you were making about my post.

Aurum · 11-02-2015 03:02AM

BlatentCheek wrote: »

In general I agree, and the Comment Is Free section in particular is packed with the sort of narrow-minded, dogmatic, right-on nonsense that serves to turn normal people away from the left. However its news coverage is occasionally (not consistently) excellent and things like its coverage of NSA data snooping are of sufficient import for it still to be considered "eminent" - just about. It should have stayed in Manchester TBH.

CiF is largely clickbait, the articles are entertaining, occasionally interesting but rarely offer serious analysis (and eighty per cent of the articles covering gender related issues are embarrassing bilge). Their live coverage of ongoing events tends to be solid though, certainly the best of the available bunch, and their world news section is fairly comprehensive, without too much editorializing. Good tech and culture sections too.

RedJoker · 11-02-2015 03:32PM

Not sure if this is being discussed elsewhere.

https://wilkes888.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/final-message-thank-you-everyone/
https://wilkes888.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/my-final-blog-entry-love-you-all/

The reason for my death is simple. I have concluded that in the realm of dating and relationships the primary characteristics required for men are as follows.

Height: above 5ft10
Race: huge bias towards caucasian and black
Wealth: or other manifestation of power

From my observations and research it appears that you need two of the three criteria for success with very few exceptions. What does this mean it means that it’s “game over” for me. By choosing to depart early, all I am doing is to accelerate the process of natural selection whilst saving myself a great deal of long term pain in the process.

I doubt game would have been much help in this case. It seems like he was more interested in "proving" why he was in a hopeless situation rather than improving himself. It's a shame because his very modest desires were easily within his reach if he had the capacity to learn game. These issues are rarely straight forward though, I'd imagine he would have found another reason had this not been an issue for him although, who knows, it was certainly a contributing factor.

Still, there are millions of guys out there dealing with the same basic insecurities. They might not jump off of buildings, but they're miserable all the same and a large portion have the capacity to achieve their desires and lead far happier lives.

The popularity and ethics of PUAs and similar communities

Comments