The Ethics of PUA

liah · 08-06-2011 8:11pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

You're really not qualified to make any of these assertions.

I'm only going off of a multitude of things I've read about correlations between lack of empathy and a variety of mental disorders, such as autism, psycho/sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, etc.

e.g.

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Axis II (personality disorders) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR) as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."[1]

And I already clarified that I'm not saying they all have disorders, but if they're not insecure (aka, not confident) at the very least why do they need PUA to begin with?

What does WBC mean?
IF the guys views are good for them then how is it unhealthy for them? You're just claiming things are unhealthy when you really aren't qualified to do so.

Westboro Baptist Church.

Again, I'm simply going off of what I've read in a wide variety of studies - generally, people who have no problem dehumanizing other people aren't particularly stable. It isn't always the case, but there's a correlation there that's incredibly hard to ignore.

Having traits that are also shared by sociopaths isn't indicative that someone is mentally unhealthy. Again, you really aren't qualified to assess this from a psychological viewpoint. Reading wikipedia isn't an education.

Wikipedia is convenient for getting across the jist of something but it's not what cements my opinions. I prefer well-sourced medical studies, thanks.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 8:17pm

liah wrote: »

And as I've stated repeatedly, that's not the part of it I have the problem with. There's nothing wrong with learning how to socialize. There is something wrong with dehumanizing an entire gender to learn how to socialize.

Whatever works. If dehumanizing people takes away the fear of people then that's what you should do.

Doubtful. They'll just come to resent women more over time because they're told that they shouldn't see them as anything more than objects to have sex with, so anything else a woman does that isn't sex-related is likely to annoy them (seen examples of this, it's really not pretty..).

Yea maybe, I don't know anyone who has done this in real life.

Because it's ****ing with other people's heads. Would you want someone to **** with your head for their own fun? Using you like an unknowing puppet? I seriously fecking doubt it. It comes down to the basic tenet of 'treat people the way you would like to be treated.'

People who have the "if treating people like **** makes you happy, why stop" mentality don't have friends for very long and end up isolated and alone, because while they may win people over with their superficial charm for awhile, people will cop on, and the person with that attitude will be left alone, probably growing more resentful and bitter by the day.

I think you just hope this is true. If they were truly good at manipulating people they would never find out.

I will never, ever make the conscious decision to choose my own happiness when that choice means dehumanizing another person or has the potential to cause hurt. I just won't. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I knowingly screwed over someone else.

This is just naive. If you turn a guy down you are hurting him.

Probably, but never purposely or consciously, unlike PUA who presumably know that the women don't want to be manipulated yet do it anyway.

Of course you do. This again is just being naive. How do you think a guy feels when you reject him? Surely you are consciously making him unhappy.

Maybe he should find a way to make himself happy that doesn't require potentially making other people miserable.

I don't think it does make women's lives miserable you're just being over the top but f it's a choice between him being miserable and someone else being miserable making a martyr of yourself is moronic. Maybe he's had enough of being miserable and doesn't really care if someone else has to have a turn.

Valmont · 08-06-2011 8:19pm

liah wrote: »

There is something wrong with dehumanizing an entire gender to learn how to socialize.

Doubtful. They'll just come to resent women more over time because they're told that they shouldn't see them as anything more than objects to have sex with

And it's not my opinion of what a healthy person is, it's pretty much the standard for what people consider to be of healthy mind.

Probably, but never purposely or consciously, unlike PUA who presumably know that the women don't want to be manipulated yet do it anyway.

Maybe he should find a way to make himself happy that doesn't require potentially making other people miserable.

Wow. I think you have built up quite a strawman here and gone way overboard with your generalisations. Who are these evil, manipulating dehumanizers? Yes, some of the PUA stuff is creepy and disrespectful but that's not to say people just read certain sections regarding conversational skills or body language to help them find a partner or, *gasp*, a cheeky shag every now and then.

Frankly, I think that talking about the poor manipulated women is just degrading. Who's to say they aren't playing their own games? Pushing their own agenda?

leggo · 08-06-2011 8:21pm

Oh and by the by, negging essentially translates into 'slagging' in Irish slang. Your first definition claims men use it to 'validate' women. I also suggest you look up the word validation. Even if your definition was correct how would that be a bad thing?

Let's face it, you've said you don't wish to discuss any of the actual material when asked to...which translates to me as "...because I haven't read it and have based my opinions on hearsay." And your argument is being torn to shreds now.

Fair enough, you don't like the idea from the very little you know of it. Good for you. But stop trying to make ridiculous assertions with little to no evidence to back it up.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 8:23pm

liah wrote: »

I'm only going off of a multitude of things I've read about correlations between lack of empathy and a variety of mental disorders, such as autism, psycho/sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, etc.

Are you saying they already have these problem or that these problems are caused by PUA?

And I already clarified that I'm not saying they all have disorders, but if they're not insecure (aka, not confident) at the very least why do they need PUA to begin with?

Bad social skills. Doesn't need to be insecurity to cause bad social skills in fact a sense superiority can also cause you to be socially inept.

Again, I'm simply going off of what I've read in a wide variety of studies - generally, people who have no problem dehumanizing other people aren't particularly stable. It isn't always the case, but there's a correlation there that's incredibly hard to ignore.

Again you're basically out of your depth here.

Wikipedia is convenient for getting across the jist of something but it's not what cements my opinions. I prefer well-sourced medical studies, thanks.

Medical studies don't prove much in the hands of someone uneducated in the field. Seriously you're not qualified to really discuss this from a psychological point of view and neither am I. Simply stating an opinion and than linking to a study which doesn't repeat your opinion does not make your opinion Scientifically validated. I think it's pretty clear you don't have any formal education in any Scientific discipline because the way you use Science is very unscientific.

liah · 08-06-2011 8:25pm

strobe wrote: »

So many people, male and female do this stuff too, all the time. They just aren't aware they are doing it. I've seen girls coming onto guys using 'negging' (which seems to be one of the things which most 'disturb' people) several times. I'm sure they would call it 'playful teasing' or something like that and have never read 'The Game' or anything similar but 'negging' is exactly what they were doing.

I think motivation would be the main factor here in terms of the ethical question.

This isn't what I have the problem with, though, strobe, it's how it's conveyed, how it's presented. The core of the material, what you get from reading between the lines? Solid stuff. But the way it's marketed and consumed is, simply, offensive and very worrying.

There's nothing wrong with giving people a nudge in the right direction in terms of how things will come out sounding, how not to put your foot in your mouth, how to chill out when you approach, etc. I'm 100% behind all of that. What I am not behind is the fact that it's used as a manual for manipulation by consumers, and that the language leads those consumers to believe that it's okay to objectify.

Try putting yourself in a girl's shoes and reading some of this stuff (especially when people are arguing that it's perfectly fine to fuck with other people to get what you want). Keeping in mind that, as females, we're (generally speaking) used to being physically more vulnerable as is (which is something I'm very aware of every time I'm in a pub; I don't know about other girls, but the fact that most men are bigger than me does make me feel a bit vulnerable), and now we are also emotionally more vulnerable because we have the potential of being manipulated and strung along without knowing, being effectively made a total fool of. Think about how you would feel if men, who are all bigger than you, saw you as prey, saw you as something to manipulate, and had no problem encouraging your objectification and had no consideration for how you may feel about being manipulated.

I honestly don't think you would like it.

And yes, motivation is the main factor here, and from what I've seen, the majority pick it up solely to get women into bed (which I have a problem with), it's the minority who seem to use it for its intended purpose of self-improvement (which I have no problem with).

Wolfe Tone · 08-06-2011 8:30pm

In fairness liah many women are manipulative and string lads along in relationships so its not a worry that only women have.

I think you should read the book tbh, can't do any harm.

It helps lads get their foot in the door so to speak rather than be the guy standing on the sidelines watching other men do their thing and thinking "why arent I able to be like that?"

People take it to extremes of course, but its no different to someone who naturally does these things going out and pulling women all over the shop just for sex.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 8:36pm

liah wrote: »

to believe that it's okay to objectify.

It is ok objectify people. Your perfectly entitled to view people how you wise I don't see why you should decide what's an ok way to view people.

Try putting yourself in a girl's shoes and reading some of this stuff (especially when people are arguing that it's perfectly fine to fuck with other people to get what you want). Keeping in mind that, as females, we're (generally speaking) used to being physically more vulnerable as is (which is something I'm very aware of every time I'm in a pub; I don't know about other girls, but the fact that most men are bigger than me does make me feel a bit vulnerable), and now we are also emotionally more vulnerable because we have the potential of being manipulated and strung along without knowing, being effectively made a total fool of. Think about how you would feel if men, who are all bigger than you, saw you as prey, saw you as something to manipulate, and had no problem encouraging your objectification and had no consideration for how you may feel about being manipulated.

This comes across as playing the victim. While yes women are physically weaker it's not like this becomes an issue for most people, how often does a mans strength gain him anything in relation to a woman?

Imo I think women are better at manipulation and mind games so you can't really claim they are more vulnerable of being manipulated.Cosmopolitan has been doing this a lot longer than PUA has been around.

I honestly don't think you would like it.

Of course no one would like it to happen to them. But it does happen to them by people who haven't learned how to be manipulative but by people who are just naturally good at it. If it anything it's basically arming yourself when everyone already has a gun. That's basically what someone with no social skills is, someone who can be easily used and treated like crap by those who are better at socializing.

And yes, motivation is the main factor here, and from what I've seen, the majority pick it up solely to get women into bed (which I have a problem with), it's the minority who seem to use it for its intended purpose of self-improvement (which I have no problem with).

What's wrong with wanting to get women into bed?

liah · 08-06-2011 8:49pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Whatever works. If dehumanizing people takes away the fear of people then that's what you should do.

That's scary, and I personally don't think it should be encouraged, at all. Agree to disagree because I will never agree with that statement.

I think you just hope this is true. If they were truly good at manipulating people they would never find out.

I'm just going off of what I've seen happen to these kinds of people, your experience may be different, I don't know. But it does happen.

Of course you do. This again is just being naive. How do you think a guy feels when you reject him? Surely you are consciously making him unhappy.

If I reject a guy I'll do my absolute best to be respectful about it - this is a situation that is unavoidable. It is not comparable to seeking out people to manipulate, I cannot control if a man asks me out and I cannot control whether or not I'm attracted to him. He, however, can control who he chooses to manipulate.

I don't think it does make women's lives miserable you're just being over the top but f it's a choice between him being miserable and someone else being miserable making a martyr of yourself is moronic. Maybe he's had enough of being miserable and doesn't really care if someone else has to have a turn.

Again, I'm only going off of how I've seen it work, and I have spoken to women who very much resented the guys who played them.

And I don't get what point you're trying to make with the rest of it, there's many ways to get what you want without having to treat other people like crap.

Valmont wrote: »

Wow. I think you have built up quite a strawman here and gone way overboard with your generalisations. Who are these evil, manipulating dehumanizers? Yes, some of the PUA stuff is creepy and disrespectful but that's not to say people just read certain sections regarding conversational skills or body language to help them find a partner or, *gasp*, a cheeky shag every now and then.

If you'll notice, I'm only really responding to what SugarHigh says and he's directing it towards a severe lack of empathy and that is the only part I am addressing. It's clear enough to me that I'm talking solely about the type of people who are callous and unemotional and have no problem with the idea of hurting other people.

Frankly, I think that talking about the poor manipulated women is just degrading. Who's to say they aren't playing their own games? Pushing their own agenda?

They probably are, and I don't approve of them doing it anymore than I do men doing it.

leggo wrote: »

Oh and by the by, negging essentially translates into 'slagging' in Irish slang. Your first definition claims men use it to 'validate' women. I also suggest you look up the word validation. Even if your definition was correct how would that be a bad thing?

Well, they do use it to validate girls, to see how they handle it.

And there's a difference between free-flowing banter that's just plain funny, and premeditated banter that's scripted for an intended purpose.

Let's face it, you've said you don't wish to discuss any of the actual material when asked to...which translates to me as "...because I haven't read it and have based my opinions on hearsay." And your argument is being torn to shreds now.

How so? Have you actually read anything I'm saying?

I am talking about the people who use the material and how they use that material. The material itself really doesn't make a difference, because it's not the actual material I have the problem with (or at least, the idea of the material, I still have a problem with the terminology). I have read some material, but I have not read The Game.

I don't see how this changes anything tbqfh.

Fair enough, you don't like the idea from the very little you know of it. Good for you. But stop trying to make ridiculous assertions with little to no evidence to back it up.

Again, don't use arguments with one person as my overall argument. I don't work like that. It's a tangent, and does in no way summarize my overall opinion of the practice.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Are you saying they already have these problem or that these problems are caused by PUA?

They probably already have these problems and PUA probably compounds it.

Bad social skills. Doesn't need to be insecurity to cause bad social skills in fact a sense superiority can also cause you to be socially inept.

Typically bad social skills lead to insecurity. I've never actually met anyone with bad social skills who wasn't at least a little insecure.

Again you're basically out of your depth here.

If you're going to continue to try to insult me without actually giving me more than that I'm seriously not going to bother wasting my time, I've had enough of your particular style of derailment and if this is the road you're going down, then don't expect me to continue with you.

Are you trying to argue that a lack of empathy isn't a symptom of various mental disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder?

Medical studies don't prove much in the hands of someone uneducated in the field. Seriously you're not qualified to really discuss this from a psychological point of view and neither am I. Simply stating an opinion and than linking to a study which doesn't repeat your opinion does not make your opinion Scientifically validated. I think it's pretty clear you don't have any formal education in any Scientific discipline because the way you use Science is very unscientific.

So nobody can discuss anything unless they're an expert in the field? This is new.

All I have said is that it's my impression that people who lack empathy generally do because of emotional trauma, mental health issues, or simple insecurity, and one I have gained from reading multiple studies - people who completely lack empathy, such as the hypothetical person you say shouldn't care about how his actions affect others, are typically not emotionally healthy by any standard meaning of the word.

I'm sure there's a few out there who are completely unempathetic and still emotionally healthy, but go ask any psychiatrist about it. They'll tell you the same thing I do, it's a warning sign. That is literally all I am saying.

The fact that people think a complete lack of empathy is normal is actually even more worrying to me tbh.

SugarHigh, is it actually possible for you to converse with me without constantly telling me I'm stupid, uneducated, or any amount of other things? Why do you have to make every single thread personal?

Do the fecking research yourself if you're not satisfied with what I've to say or what studies have to say.

liah · 08-06-2011 8:58pm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

In fairness liah many women are manipulative and string lads along in relationships so its not a worry that only women have.

As I have stated throughout the thread, a few times now.

I think you should read the book tbh, can't do any harm.

I don't see the point, it's not as if The Game is the only source of PUA material and I've seen plenty of other stuff. And it's not the book I have the problem with.

It helps lads get their foot in the door so to speak rather than be the guy standing on the sidelines watching other men do their thing and thinking "why arent I able to be like that?"

And I've said multiple times I have no problem with that and even encourage it.

People take it to extremes of course, but its no different to someone who naturally does these things going out and pulling women all over the shop just for sex.

And the only people I am railing against are the ones who take it to extremes and have no consideration for the women they're manipulating; I thought this was clear.

SugarHigh wrote: »

It is ok objectify people. Your perfectly entitled to view people how you wise I don't see why you should decide what's an ok way to view people.

Sure, everyone's perfectly entitled to do whatever the hell they want. It doesn't mean that it's a good attitude to promote.

This comes across as playing the victim. While yes women are physically weaker it's not like this becomes an issue for most people, how often does a mans strength gain him anything in relation to a woman?

You go on about how men should see women as prey then get after me for playing the victim?

It has become an issue for me because I have history with sexual abuse.

Imo I think women are better at manipulation and mind games so you can't really claim they are more vulnerable of being manipulated.Cosmopolitan has been doing this a lot longer than PUA has been around.

And as I've said throughout the thread I've an equal amount of contempt for them and think they're giving my gender a horrible name.

Of course no one would like it to happen to them. But it does happen to them by people who haven't learned how to be manipulative but by people who are just naturally good at it. If it anything it's basically arming yourself when everyone already has a gun. That's basically what someone with no social skills is, someone who can be easily used and treated like crap by those who are better at socializing.
What's wrong with wanting to get women into bed?

Again, nothing - wanting to have sex is perfectly natural. I've had ONS myself, I really don't have a problem with it. As I have said repeatedly, it's not the actual advice I have a problem with. It's the manner in which it's presented that I disagree with because it lends itself to selective interpretation and people use it to justify treating other people like crap.

Wolfe Tone · 08-06-2011 9:07pm

Liah, what is the difference between a guy who, being naturally good with women, picks up a different woman every time he is out and a guy who is a complete disaster looking at what the successful guy does, asking him a few questions and copying him?

They both want the same thing, one naturally has the tools and the know how(they are the type who say "be yourself" because things just come natural to them) and one as to learn them,motivations are the same.

And the only people I am railing against are the ones who take it to extremes and have no consideration for the women they're manipulating; I thought this was clear.

It appears to me that you don't have any problems really with PUA but merely some men who use women, through naturally learned means, charisma etc or abusing what they have learned to do.

PUA gives people the skills, it doesn't make them abuse them.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 9:12pm

liah wrote: »

That's scary, and I personally don't think it should be encouraged, at all. Agree to disagree because I will never agree with that statement.

You said yourself you used to be "manipulative bitch" so it was a clearly a stage you went through. Do you think going through that stage helped you get to where you are now?

I think these guys need to go through a stage like so that they can comfortable around people.

If I reject a guy I'll do my absolute best to be respectful about it - this is a situation that is unavoidable. It is not comparable to seeking out people to manipulate, I cannot control if a man asks me out and I cannot control whether or not I'm attracted to him. He, however, can control who he chooses to manipulate.

He still gets hurt by your actions. It is avoidable by not rejecting him. This would of course be ridiculous but I'm just showing how your statements of never hurting anyone was naive.

Maybe these guys need to go through a stage of potentially hurting people to get to a stage where they can not be miserable.

Again, I'm only going off of how I've seen it work, and I have spoken to women who very much resented the guys who played them.

Big deal. I've spoken tog uys who resented the women who rejected them

And I don't get what point you're trying to make with the rest of it, there's many ways to get what you want without having to treat other people like crap.

Depends on what you want and what your currnet circumstances are. If dehumanizing people breaks down your fear of people then that's what you should do. It likely won't be permanent, just a stage.

If you'll notice, I'm only really responding to what SugarHigh says and he's directing it towards a severe lack of empathy and that is the only part I am addressing. It's clear enough to me that I'm talking solely about the type of people who are callous and unemotional and have no problem with the idea of hurting other people.

Yea but we don't really know how many PUA that applies to. You started the thread before reading my opinions.

And there's a difference between free-flowing banter that's just plain funny, and premeditated banter that's scripted for an intended purpose.

The free flowing banter has the same purpose. To get laid.

Typically bad social skills lead to insecurity. I've never actually met anyone with bad social skills who wasn't at least a little insecure.

But it's just you deciding they're insecure. A lot of people with bad social skills are not insecure in the slightest . In fact they can be right arrogant sh1ts who genuinely believe they are better than everyone. You will probably put this down to insecurity because pop-psychologists put everything down to insecurity.

If you're going to continue to try to insult me without actually giving me more than that I'm seriously not going to bother wasting my time, I've had enough of your particular style of derailment and if this is the road you're going down, then don't expect me to continue with you.

Saying you're out of your depth isn't an insult? Are you a qualified psychologist?

Are you trying to argue that a lack of empathy isn't a symptom of various mental disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder?

Don't put words in my mouth. Having a symptom is not the same as having a disorder. Again you really aren't qualified to discuss this from psychological disorder viewpoint.

So nobody can discuss anything unless they're an expert in the field? This is new.

All I have said is that it's my impression that people who lack empathy generally do because of emotional trauma, mental health issues, or simple insecurity, and one I have gained from reading multiple studies - people who completely lack empathy, such as the hypothetical person you say shouldn't care about how his actions affect others, are typically not emotionally healthy by any standard meaning of the word.

I'm sure there's a few out there who are completely unempathetic and still emotionally healthy, but go ask any psychiatrist about it. They'll tell you the same thing I do, it's a warning sign. That is literally all I am saying.

You are still just trying to build up a connection between you and trained psychologists that doesn't exist to give your opinions an air of Scientific credibility that they don't actually have. It's something that happens a lot on the Internet but is also very common among journalists.

SugarHigh, is it actually possible for you to converse with me without constantly telling me I'm stupid, uneducated, or any amount of other things? Why do you have to make every single thread personal?

Do the fecking research yourself if you're not satisfied with what I've to say or what studies have to say.

The studies don't back up what you say. You are claiming people involved in PUA have psychological problems but you didn't post a study that claimed this. You made one claim and then proved another. I never said you were stupid but I did say you are uneducated in this field which you are. I just think you are way too confident about your assertion as if it's backed up by Science but it isn't and you don't seem to understand why it isn't. Disagreeing with your opinion isn't getting personal. I'm just pointing out you aren't qualified to be making the claims you are.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 9:15pm

liah wrote: »

You go on about how men should see women as prey then get after me for playing the victim?

It has become an issue for me because I have history with sexual abuse.

I don't think viewing women as prey in a nightclub has anything to do with sexual abuse. It's not like they are forcing women to do anything. They simply learn how to charm them the same way most guys learn how to do it naturally.

liah · 08-06-2011 9:18pm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Liah, what is the difference between a guy who, being naturally good with women, picks up a different woman every time he is out and a guy who is a complete disaster looking at what the successful guy does, asking him a few questions and copying him?

Presumably, one is being himself, and the other has a constant internal dialogue in his head telling him when to deliver such-and-such a line, when to start kino, when to k-close, when to #-close, etc.

It's like they're outside the moment, and everything that happens between you that night is calculated, premeditated, and completely nothing to do with you as a person.

At least when it flows naturally, you know they're actually there in the moment with you, not plotting their next move or running over their strategy and probably not even paying attention to what you say other than to use it to figure out what step to use next.

They both want the same thing, one naturally has the tools and the know how(they are the type who say "be yourself" because things just come natural to them) and the one who has to learn them?

Again, I don't really have a problem with people learning this stuff. I don't know how many times I've said it throughout the thread but it's at least 3 times. I do have a problem with the presentation.

It appears to me that you don't have any problems really with PUA but merely some men who use women, through naturally learned means, charisma etc or abusing what they have learned to do.

I have problems with anyone who uses anyone for sex, not just men/PUA. It's the way the PUA message is delivered that I'm concerned about, but I've said this about 10 times already so I'm not going to go over it again. There's a difference between enjoying a night in bed with someone and using them though.

PUA gives people the skills, it doesn't make them abuse them.

No, but encourages using it irresponsibly by way of the jargon involved. They could have chosen terms that were less drastic, but they didn't.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 9:24pm

liah wrote: »

Presumably, one is being himself, and the other has a constant internal dialogue in his head telling him when to deliver such-and-such a line, when to start kino, when to k-close, when to #-close, etc.

It's like they're outside the moment, and everything that happens between you that night is calculated, premeditated, and completely nothing to do with you as a person.

At least when it flows naturally, you know they're actually there in the moment with you, not plotting their next move or running over their strategy and probably not even paying attention to what you say other than to use it to figure out what step to use next.

I had to go to a lot social skills classes as a kid die to asperger's syndrome and they though premeditated steps just like your talking about. That's the only way I can do social situations because I just don't have the natural ability to them any other way. So it can't flow naturally. So basically if I'm wrong to use these methods(Not PUA methods I haven't read them) then how am I supposed to socialize with people. I just get to die miserable because I lost a genetic lottery and people like you find me creepy?

Again, I don't really have a problem with people learning this stuff. I don't know how many times I've said it throughout the thread but it's at least 3 times. I do have a problem with the presentation.

You clearly do have a problem with people learning this stuff because you routinely called it creepy.

liah · 08-06-2011 9:39pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

You said yourself you used to be "manipulative bitch" so it was a clearly a stage you went through. Do you think going through that stage helped you get to where you are now?

Frankly, no, it caused me more trouble than anything else. It made me realize that being like that is awful, though, and that I was only acting like that because I was desperately insecure.

I think these guys need to go through a stage like so that they can comfortable around people.

Perhaps, but a lot of them don't move on from that stage.

He still gets hurt by your actions. It is avoidable by not rejecting him. This would of course be ridiculous but I'm just showing how your statements of never hurting anyone was naive.

And I already said that the situations are not comparable, so find something else to compare with before calling me naive.

Maybe these guys need to go through a stage of potentially hurting people to get to a stage where they can not be miserable.

That's sad, there's plenty of other ways to do it.

Big deal. I've spoken tog uys who resented the women who rejected them

Resenting someone who rejected you because they don't find you attractive is a whole other ballgame in comparison to resenting someone who has manipulated and used you.

Depends on what you want and what your currnet circumstances are. If dehumanizing people breaks down your fear of people then that's what you should do. It likely won't be permanent, just a stage.

I disagree, I think there's much better methods of coming to terms with yourself than by making everyone around you suffer.

Yea but we don't really know how many PUA that applies to. You started the thread before reading my opinions.

Yeah, and I was talking about jargon before you came along and started making statements along the lines of people should be entitled to hurt others if it makes them happy.

The free flowing banter has the same purpose. To get laid.

Not always. Sometimes, they do it because they actually like the banter, and sex happens to follow - but they're not all only having banter with you just because they want sex.

But it's just you deciding they're insecure. A lot of people with bad social skills are not insecure in the slightest . In fact they can be right arrogant sh1ts who genuinely believe they are better than everyone. You will probably put this down to insecurity because pop-psychologists put everything down to insecurity.

I said 'typically.' I didn't say 'always.' I've said throughout the thread 'I know it's not all.' What are you looking for here, exactly? Typically stuff like this trends toward insecurity, this is not something I've plucked out of thin-air, generally if people want build confidence, they're starting from a place of insecurity. How is this such an impossible leap to make?

Saying you're out of your depth isn't an insult? Are you a qualified psychologist?

It is purposefully derailing with the intention of making me look stupid. Of course I'm not a qualified psychologist, and neither are you - but you don't have to be a qualified ANYTHING to understand that some things trend. If that was actually a rule, nobody would ever be able to have an opinion on anything, ever.

Not to mention, it's not like it's some unfounded opinion. Lack of empathy is a trait of a variety of social disorders, and it is also a trait of insecurity. It by no means means I'm saying that the only way to experience a lack of empathy is if you have a disorder or are insecure. So why do you feel it necessary to constantly say that I'm out of my depth, despite the fact that none of what I just wrote is actually wrong?

Don't put words in my mouth. Having a symptom is not the same as having a disorder. Again you really aren't qualified to discuss this from psychological disorder viewpoint.

I never said it did; you are the one putting words into my mouth and making assumptions.

You are still just trying to build up a connection between you and trained psychologists that doesn't exist to give your opinions an air of Scientific credibility that they don't actually have. It's something that happens a lot on the Internet but is also very common among journalists.

Have you done any research here at all? Because it's not like what I'm saying is totally out of this world. This is actually pretty common stuff, and I am in no way saying it to give my posts or opinions an "air" of anything - you are projecting things onto me that simply are not there if you truly believe that to be the case.

Do you really want me to link you to every single study that has led me to this opinion? Because I can, if that's really want you want, but I don't see why it's necessary as frankly this is pretty common knowledge.

I don't know what journalists have to do with anything tbh.

The studies don't back up what you say. You are claiming people involved in PUA have psychological problems but you didn't post a study that claimed this.

Quote where I said that everyone involved in PUA has psychological problems, please.

You made one claim and then proved another.

No. I made one claim, then you changed the goalposts and assumed I meant something that I didn't, and then you dragged it off on a tangent by claiming that the idea that lack of empathy is tied to insecurity and other emotional health problems is bollocks; the quote was simply to address that, NOT my argument as a whole. I never once said that all PUA people have emotional health issues. I said people with a severe lack of empathy probably have emotional health issues. There's a massive difference.

Now can you please, for the love of god, stop putting words into my mouth, stop making assumptions, and stop trying to drag the argument all over the place?

I never said you were stupid but I did say you are uneducated in this field which you are. I just think you are way too confident about your assertion as if it's backed up by Science but it isn't and you don't seem to understand why it isn't. Disagreeing with your opinion isn't getting personal. I'm just pointing out you aren't qualified to be making the claims you are.

Again, if everyone had to be an expert on the topics they discuss, we'd never discuss anything at all. And again, there is plenty of evidence to back up my argument, but you refuse to acknowledge this because you think I'm arguing something that I am simply not.

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't think viewing women as prey in a nightclub has anything to do with sexual abuse. It's not like they are forcing women to do anything. They simply learn how to charm them the same way most guys learn how to do it naturally.

So you're saying you can't understand why a victim of abuse would feel aware of large, drunk men that could easily overpower her?

And please, keep that reply in context. I'm not talking about anyone other than myself, and why I am very aware of being manipulated.

strobe · 08-06-2011 9:44pm

liah wrote: »

This isn't what I have the problem with, though, strobe, it's how it's conveyed, how it's presented. The core of the material, what you get from reading between the lines? Solid stuff. But the way it's marketed and consumed is, simply, offensive and very worrying.

There's nothing wrong with giving people a nudge in the right direction in terms of how things will come out sounding, how not to put your foot in your mouth, how to chill out when you approach, etc. I'm 100% behind all of that. What I am not behind is the fact that it's used as a manual for manipulation by consumers, and that the language leads those consumers to believe that it's okay to objectify.

Hmm, yeah ok. I'd take your point on that. Some of the stuff I've seen online has been pretty bad alright when it's taken to extremes. I'm always going on my little spiels on here about coercion so it would be pretty hypocritical not to object to some of the stuff on the far end of the scale of PUA, and I do.

Try putting yourself in a girl's shoes and reading some of this stuff (especially when people are arguing that it's perfectly fine to fuck with other people to get what you want). Keeping in mind that, as females, we're (generally speaking) used to being physically more vulnerable as is (which is something I'm very aware of every time I'm in a pub; I don't know about other girls, but the fact that most men are bigger than me does make me feel a bit vulnerable), and now we are also emotionally more vulnerable because we have the potential of being manipulated and strung along without knowing, being effectively made a total fool of. Think about how you would feel if men, who are all bigger than you, saw you as prey, saw you as something to manipulate, and had no problem encouraging your objectification and had no consideration for how you may feel about being manipulated.

I honestly don't think you would like it.

Well I don't really have to put myself in anyone else's shoes. I'd only be a light welterweight so most guys have 20 lbs or more on me. There also are women (and men) out there who would have no problem stringing me (or others) along and making a total fool out of me, if they could. I've met plenty of them. Both in a professional and personal capacity. So really, it's not something I can't understand because I'm a man. I 'get it'.

And yes, motivation is the main factor here, and from what I've seen, the majority pick it up solely to get women into bed (which I have a problem with),

See I don't really see any problem with men trying to get women into bed, or visa versa. It's been happening for a lot longer than all this PUA stuff has been around for.

it's the minority who seem to use it for its intended purpose of self-improvement (which I have no problem with).

Well it's intended purpose is to make guys better at getting women into bed. That's the self improvement it intends.

Like I say I do agree with you that some of how it's presented, particularly in the online communities, is completely over the top and definitely a little creepy. But I think that's an extreme.

leggo · 08-06-2011 9:49pm

liah wrote: »

How so? Have you actually read anything I'm saying?

I am talking about the people who use the material and how they use that material. The material itself really doesn't make a difference, because it's not the actual material I have the problem with (or at least, the idea of the material, I still have a problem with the terminology). I have read some material, but I have not read The Game.

I have, have you read it yourself?

Because when I argue that you can't hold the material responsible for what people do with it, you say "Well just read the jargon they use! It says it there!"

So you're blaming the material there. Whether you admit it or not. That's what you're doing.

And then in that quote above you say, hang on, I'll quote it again and put it in bold this time:

it's not the actual material I have the problem with

Like you can't have no problem with the material and just have a problem with how they word it. Different people word it differently. And you constantly get the wording mixed up by saying stuff like 'negging is about validating women'...which would not only be a good thing if it were true, but it's not even accurate.

Your argument is directly correcting itself and also massively, massively flawed. You admit to not reading the main source material. So what exactly ARE you going on?!

But that's cool. It wouldn't be an irrational hatred if it made sense. Hate away, by all means!

In saying that, though, if you were to come onto boards and try and logically argue that you should cross the road whenever you see a black person...you're going to get called up on it.

I suggest you either learn what you're talking about before you make your mind up...or just keep stuff like this to yourself, in future.

liah · 08-06-2011 9:52pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

I had to go to a lot social skills classes as a kid die to asperger's syndrome and they though premeditated steps just like your talking about. That's the only way I can do social situations because I just don't have the natural ability to them any other way. So it can't flow naturally. So basically if I'm wrong to use these methods(Not PUA methods I haven't read them) then how am I supposed to socialize with people. I just get to die miserable because I lost a genetic lottery and people like you find me creepy?

You clearly do have a problem with people learning this stuff because you routinely called it creepy.

You have Aspergers?

Ah, okay. Suddenly everything seems to make more sense. I don't mean that in a bad way, by the way; just that I understand your position a lot more now.

Listen, I had to learn to socialize, too. I grew up on the road with no siblings and a working single mother - I didn't have Aspergers, but I certainly didn't know how to socialize. I, like you, had to learn everything. I do know what it's like to a degree.

I don't have problems with people learning how to socialize, obviously I don't because if I did I would be a complete hypocrite as none of it came naturally to me. I think you are completely entitled to learn how to communicate effectively.

It's the method that I don't agree with. I find the terms creepy, because it is indicative of a dishonest/objectifying mindset and tends to perpetuate that, and I personally do not want to encounter someone who will be dishonest to me or objectify me, and most girls seem to not want to be lied to or objectified.

I think it would be much better to learn how to have understanding for people, and learn the consequences some aspects of PUA may result in. Perhaps if the ideas of 'prey' and 'targets' and 'HBs' were removed, and the focus was put more on building genuine confidence rather than a manual to getting laid, I would have more respect for the idea. If it didn't treat women as labels or 'lesser' than the male, I would have more respect for the idea.

I do think there's a market for this kind of thing and completely understand why there's a market for it, I just think it's going about it in the complete wrong way, and I feel bad for the genuine guys who get sucked into the whole thing and end up thinking less of women as a result.

Wibbs · 08-06-2011 9:56pm

Liah, the jargon? Bit of a red herring in a lot of ways I reckon. I wouldn't read too much into it anyway. Men love jargon. They get a real hard on for it. Listen to any male only group with a common interest, the jargon bonds them. It can be less to do with the object of the jargon, more a sense of belonging. Hang around military men or science or gaming or computer geeks, their speech is damn near unintelligible*. Men also tend to like steps. A-B-C-D. A man can sit in the jacks until his lower legs go numb reading the manual for his new phone.

This goes double for "nerds" who may be more socially isolated in the first place so crave that and who are much more the focus of the PUA stuff than the "jock" types. The all over the place "arty" types don't seem to buy into it as much. So think of the audience of PUA and there's a lot of your reasons for how it's laid out.

liah wrote: »

Yes, they will do better at sleeping with lots of hot women, but at what cost?

Sleeping with lots of hot women?

Cost V benefit? hmmmm I dunno...

. It can make some men into bitter people. I suspect many would have been bitter anyway, but I do take your point.

On the other hand sleeping with loads of women may have one advantage. It ironically makes you less sex obsessed. The guy who is convinced pussy is rare and must obey the owners of same who may ration it, does not a happy man make. Doesn't do much for the woman either. There are men currently reading this in relationships that are shíte because they think sex is hard to come by outside the relationship, so will take any sort of guff, inc bugger all sex inside the relationship(Their female equivalent is the woman who stays in one or successive bad relationships cos she thinks she won't get another man. Women can be near obsessives over that stuff. More on that later). Anyhoo... the guy who realises sex is easy to get, doesn't value that aspect of a woman as much as the guy who doesn't know this. That guy is more likely to value you as a woman, as an overall package, not just as a piece of ass. He's more discerning. He's also more honest. He's not bargaining for your knickers. Compare him to the male "friend" most women have who is there for you, but secretly trying to get the legover.

Personally speaking and breaking it down to crass brass tacks? Now, if I'm with a woman, I'm with her because I like her, she interests and stimulates me. I'm having sex with her, not having sex, cos I know I can have sex easy enough elsewhere. I chose to be with her and she with me. There are an awful lot of blokes out there with women, not by choice, but by fluke, even if they spend a lifetime telling themselves otherwise.

Is it really worth it, just to get sexual gratification?

Sometimes I suppose it is. I dunno. It would be my opinion that men and women lie to each other and themselves where their genitals are concerned pretty much equally. Women do it slightly more, mainly cos it's a sellers market. How many times have you heard things like "love at first sight/he swept me off my feet/we have chemistry" hours before the woman got the leg over. Phrases you just don't hear men saying. It's a way for women to hide their sexual needs and couch them in societally acceptable terms. A whole other thread about why the hell they need to right there...

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

In fairness liah many women are manipulative and string lads along in relationships so its not a worry that only women have.

Yep, women just have more focus and practice and prowess at it from an earlier age. A fairly average looking woman at 25 has been approached sexually more than your average male rockstar at the same age

Sellers market etc. Plus women have much more of a relationship focus driving them. Many many women judge themselves(too fcuking harshly) on how good they are at getting and keeping a relationship. Being a single woman is far more of a stigma than being in a relationship, even a shítty one and waaaay more of a stigma than being a single man. Even the descriptive terms. Bachelor sounds cool, spinster sounds horrible. They're often more competitive about relationships than men too. Men for most of the trajectory of most relationships are passengers, not drivers. Honestly? I do think there maybe a slight element where PUA is disliked and distrusted by many women, because it seems to take away some of their advantage? Maybe not their advantage, but creeping in on their focus maybe?

*I know women are in those areas too and use jargon too, but I strongly suspect that if they were women led areas there would be less jargon.

Wolfe Tone · 08-06-2011 10:00pm

liah wrote: »

Presumably, one is being himself, and the other has a constant internal dialogue in his head telling him when to deliver such-and-such a line, when to start kino, when to k-close, when to #-close, etc.

It's like they're outside the moment, and everything that happens between you that night is calculated, premeditated, and completely nothing to do with you as a person.

At least when it flows naturally, you know they're actually there in the moment with you, not plotting their next move or running over their strategy and probably not even paying attention to what you say other than to use it to figure out what step to use next.

You are looking at it the wrong way. Ok, it can start off as all canned stuff, but that won't work. Besides, everyone has canned stuff, favorite stories to tell about a holiday, a pet, or whatever. The canned stuff is to give the nervous, caught in the headlights guy something to say. Eventually he will get over using canned stuff when he sees that simple, normal things go down well. Its better using that than going over and stuttering an awkward hello and having nothing to say after that and be rejected. That guy could have literally forced himself to go over, be nervous as sh!t then shot down. Being himself didn't work. If he says a line and it fails, well he didn't fail, he did his job properly, the line failed!

Remember, he doesn't know you as a person, you are just some random pretty girl who has caught his eye. When it flows naturally he has the same motivations. Eventually the PUA guy will flow naturally too. Its all premeditated, you are deluded if you think some guy who comes over has no agenda or anything. Through doing things like kino etc, while premeditated at first it will become natural.

Again, I don't really have a problem with people learning this stuff. I don't know how many times I've said it throughout the thread but it's at least 3 times. I do have a problem with the presentation.

Loads of men want loads of sex. PUA can give them that, people can sell those skills, so they market them as such and get well paid.

No, but encourages using it irresponsibly by way of the jargon involved. They could have chosen terms that were less drastic, but they didn't.

lol no it doesn't. The guys who use it to get tons of women probably want that, they now just have the tools.

Theres nothing wrong with PUA stuff, its improved many peoples lives and taught them important social skills. Sure some people abuse it(if using your skills to get a load of women is abusing it, I don't think it is).

I think you just don't get it tbh What do you want? People to stay miserable and socially inept? These are skills most have naturally. PUA gives them the skills, gets them to approach a ton of women, not care about rejection and helps them be more successful with women.

There is no difference between a natural player and one who learns how to become one. Theres no difference between those terms in PUA and ones which other men use to describe women, ride, lash etc.

I'm no expert, not even close, but its apparent that you just don't understand this at all. You really should read the book.

liah · 08-06-2011 10:08pm

strobe wrote: »

Well I don't really have to put myself in anyone else's shoes. I'd only be a light welterweight so most guys have 20 lbs or more on me. There also are women (and men) out there who would have no problem stringing me (or others) along and making a total fool out of me, if they could. I've met plenty of them. Both in a professional and personal capacity. So really, it's not something I can't understand because I'm a man. I 'get it'.

I don't know. I think it's different when you put it in a sexual context. I think a lot of guys underestimate how intimidating it can actually be.

See I don't really see any problem with men trying to get women into bed, or visa versa. It's been happening for a lot longer than all this PUA stuff has been around for.

Okay, I worded that poorly.

It's not that I have a problem with men trying to get women into bed per se. I do have a problem when that's the only reason they're talking to a woman at all. Does that make sense?

Like.. if there were two scenarios, and imagine both are one night stands:

1) a guy runs game on a girl for the sole purpose of having sex and just puts up with her talking to be able to get to the goal and has sex with her, or
2) a guy chats up a girl he finds attractive using game and just enjoys the night with no expectations, and they happen to fall into bed together.

Scenario 1 creeps me out. He's not interested in me, he's not interested in talking to me, he's JUST interested in getting the hole/adding another notch.

Scenario 2 doesn't. He's in it because he wants to have a nice evening, and getting laid is just a bonus, it's not the sole reason for communication.

Do you see what I mean? Like, I mean, I know that realistically they both want to get laid. But to me there's a fundamental difference in the two attitudes, and that's where the creepy factor lies. The desperation factor, or the dehumanizing factor, or a combination of the two, I don't know.

Well it's intended purpose is to make guys better at getting women into bed. That's the self improvement it intends.

I was getting the impression from the flurry of replies here that it's meant to be a tool for guys to build confidence in general and learn how to socialize with women, not solely to bed them. Okay. Now it's back to being a bit creepy.

Like I say I do agree with you that some of how it's presented, particularly in the online communities, is completely over the top and definitely a little creepy. But I think that's an extreme.

I don't know if it is tbh. Guess that's why I started the thread.

leggo wrote: »

Because when I argue that you can't hold the material responsible for what people do with it, you say "Well just read the jargon they use! It says it there!"

Er, no - my jargon reference isn't anything to do with The Game, even if it is included there. It's from other material I've read (e.g. http://www.fastseduction.com/acronyms.shtml)

So you're blaming the material there. Whether you admit it or not. That's what you're doing.

I'm blaming the jargon the community has chosen to use, it's not my fault that the jargon is included in the material.

Like you can't have no problem with the material and just have a problem with how they word it.

Er, yes, actually, I can. It's pretty obvious from the rest of my posts that I have no problem with the sentiment of the material (which I shorthanded there to 'the material'), but the presentation. Please read my posts before you reply to me again because I'm dead sick of saying it.

Your argument is directly correcting itself and also massively, massively flawed. You admit to not reading the main source material. So what exactly ARE you going on?!

I have told you repeatedly throughout the thread what I was going on - the people in the actual community. Please read my posts again thoroughly before replying to me again because I am really, really sick of repeating myself.

In saying that, though, if you were to come onto boards and try and logically argue that you should cross the road whenever you see a black person...you're going to get called up on it.

What does that even mean? You're accusing me of saying things I didn't, of meaning things I didn't, and of thinking things I don't.

I suggest you either learn what you're talking about before you make your mind up...or just keep stuff like this to yourself, in future.

You're accusing me of saying things I didn't, of meaning things I didn't, and of thinking things I don't. Do not bother replying to me anymore unless you actually read my posts properly.

leggo · 08-06-2011 10:14pm

Basically unless I agree with you, you mean?

Look it's been explained to you several times, by several people, that the material is intended for simple, positive results that would benefit all involved. If people decide to use it for manipulation, then they are manipulative people anyway. Pick-up didn't make them that way. You can't blame a book or a website for turning someone into a monster. Darwin didn't force Hitler to slaughter Jews. And you also can't tar everyone with the same brush.

I get it. You probably feel backed into a corner now and don't want to back down on the issue. But you can't accuse me of not reading your posts when you've specifically ignored the above point multiple times simply because it adequately deals with your problem with PUA. (I would also point out that your initial 'problem' wasn't that, it was that you didn't want to be a...'potential victim' was the phrase used, if I remember correctly).

And where does the "leave her better than you found her" ideology fit into your scale of manipulation?

I'm not trying to be a dick, btw, just have a good, hard-hitting debate. So don't take this personally.

liah · 08-06-2011 10:32pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Liah, the jargon? Bit of a red herring in a lot of ways I reckon. I wouldn't read too much into it anyway. Men love jargon. They get a real hard on for it. Listen to any male only group with a common interest, the jargon bonds them. It can be less to do with the object of the jargon, more a sense of belonging. Hang around military men or science or gaming or computer geeks, their speech is damn near unintelligible*. Men also tend to like steps. A-B-C-D. A man can sit in the jacks until his lower legs go numb reading the manual for his new phone. This goes double for "nerds" who may be more socially isolated in the first place so crave that and who are much more the focus of the PUA stuff than the "jock" types. The all over the place "arty" types don't seem to buy into it as much. So think of the audience of PUA and there's a lot of your reasons for how it's laid out.

But why does the jargon have to be so dehumanizing? Do you believe the jargon doesn't influence the mentality to any degree?

Anyhoo... the guy who realises sex is easy to get, doesn't value that aspect of a woman as much as the guy who doesn't know this. That guy is more likely to value you as a woman, as an overall package, not just as a piece of ass. He's more discerning. He's also more honest. He's not bargaining for your knickers. Compare him to the male "friend" most women have who is there for you, but secretly trying to get the legover.

Oh, agreed. This isn't my problem at all. Particularly if they're more honest.

Personally speaking and breaking it down to crass brass tacks? Now, if I'm with a woman, I'm with her because I like her, she interests and stimulates me. I'm having sex with her, not having sex, cos I know I can have sex easy enough elsewhere. I chose to be with her and she with me. There are an awful lot of blokes out there with women, not by choice, but by fluke, even if they spend a lifetime telling themselves otherwise.

The bit in bold is exactly where my problem with the whole thing lies. Too many guys are doing it to have sex, and forget there's a 'her' involved and fail to consider how she may react to the idea of having PUA used on her.

Sometimes I suppose it is. I dunno. It would be my opinion that men and women lie to each other and themselves where their genitals are concerned pretty much equally. Women do it slightly more, mainly cos it's a sellers market. How many times have you heard things like "love at first sight/he swept me off my feet/we have chemistry" hours before the woman got the leg over. Phrases you just don't hear men saying. It's a way for women to hide their sexual needs and couch them in societally acceptable terms. A whole other thread about why the hell they need to right there...

Never denied this. But re: the 'we have chemistry' guff, I honestly don't think it's (always) down to hiding sexual needs/being socially acceptable. I think they actually do believe it when they say it. It's just some kind of feeling you get with someone that you can't put into words and that's really hard to define. It may sound like bs to you but it does happen fo' real and it's not meant to hide anything.

Plus women have much more of a relationship focus driving them. Many many women judge themselves(too fcuking harshly) on how good they are at getting and keeping a relationship. Being a single woman is far more of a stigma than being in a relationship, even a shítty one and waaaay more of a stigma than being a single man. Even the descriptive terms. Bachelor sounds cool, spinster sounds horrible.

I think it's this that some PUAs tend to manipulate - they must know this, and must work their material around it. And I find that a little ethically unstable.

They're often more competitive about relationships than men too. Men for most of the trajectory of most relationships are passengers, not drivers. Honestly? I do think there maybe a slight element where PUA is disliked and distrusted by many women, because it seems to take away some of their advantage? Maybe not their advantage, but creeping in on their focus maybe?

I don't know, it's not the case for me but I can't speak for anyone else. I'm a very poor manipulator and I'm happy enough that way. :pac:

I really think most women hate it because it makes them feel vulnerable. That's why I hate it, it makes me feel terrified that I'll fall for some player. I just don't like the idea that I could be made a fool of like that.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You are looking at it the wrong way. Ok, it can start off as all canned stuff, but that won't work. Besides, everyone has canned stuff, favorite stories to tell about a holiday, a pet, or whatever. The canned stuff is to give the nervous, caught in the headlights guy something to say. Eventually he will get over using canned stuff when he sees that simple, normal things go down well. Its better using that than going over and stuttering an awkward hello and having nothing to say after that and be rejected. That guy could have literally forced himself to go over, be nervous as sh!t then shot down. Being himself didn't work. If he says a line and it fails, well he didn't fail, he did his job properly, the line failed!

Hey, like I said - I think that kind of thing is fantastic and can totally get behind that.

Remember, he doesn't know you as a person, you are just some random pretty girl who has caught his eye. When it flows naturally he has the same motivations. Eventually the PUA guy will flow naturally too. Its all premeditated, you are deluded if you think some guy who comes over has no agenda or anything. Through doing things like kino etc, while premeditated at first it will become natural.

See my response to strobe on that one I guess.

lol no it doesn't. The guys who use it to get tons of women probably want that, they now just have the tools.

I don't know, language is pretty subversive sometimes. Is it really that unreasonable to think it may get inside people's heads? r/seduction on reddit seems to indicate it does, but maybe they were like that to begin with.

Theres nothing wrong with PUA stuff, its improved many peoples lives and taught them important social skills. Sure some people abuse it(if using your skills to get a load of women is abusing it, I don't think it is).

Whether it's abused or not depends on which skills you're using and how your mindset is regarding women.

I think you just don't get it tbh What do you want? People to stay miserable and socially inept? These are skills most have naturally. PUA gives them the skills, gets them to approach a ton of women, not care about rejection and helps them be more successful with women.

Again, for the 10th time at least, it's NOT the sentiment of the thing I have a problem with. Why do people ignore me every time I say that?

I do get it, just fine, you just keep asking me to repeat myself over and over.

My problem is that it gives no consideration to the actual 'targets,' the women.

There is no difference between a natural player and one who learns how to become one. Theres no difference between those terms in PUA and ones which other men use to describe women, ride, lash etc.

Okay, fair point. But I personally see a difference between colloquial/locker room/'impress the lads' chat and using the PUA terms in a serious manner.

I'm no expert, not even close, but its apparent that you just don't understand this at all. You really should read the book.

I have no desire to read the book, I've read enough material elsewhere and it's the attitudes of those who use it I'm interested in more than the material itself.

liah · 08-06-2011 10:37pm

leggo wrote: »

Basically unless I agree with you, you mean?

Look it's been explained to you several times, by several people, that the material is intended for simple, positive results that would benefit all involved. If people decide to use it for manipulation, then they are manipulative people anyway. Pick-up didn't make them that way. You can't blame a book or a website for turning someone into a monster. Darwin didn't force Hitler to slaughter Jews. And you also can't tar everyone with the same brush.

I wasn't blaming the book. Again, I implore you to read my posts THOROUGHLY before you reply again. I was, and have been, talking exclusively about the people who practice PUA, and the jargon used in the book, and it is only OTHER PEOPLE who make mention of the book itself that I respond to. I have no desire to talk about the book, I freely admitted I haven't read the book, and I'm not going to read the book.

Stop. Putting. Words. Into. My. Mouth. Or simply read the thread.

I get it. You probably feel backed into a corner now and don't want to back down on the issue. But you can't accuse me of not reading your posts when you've specifically ignored the above point multiple times simply because it adequately deals with your problem with PUA. (I would also point out that your initial 'problem' wasn't that, it was that you didn't want to be a...'potential victim' was the phrase used, if I remember correctly).

What above point? You didn't make a point. You assumed I was talking about something that I wasn't.

And where does the "leave her better than you found her" ideology fit into your scale of manipulation?

They're not the kind of PUAs I'm talking about.

I'm not trying to be a dick, btw, just have a good, hard-hitting debate. So don't take this personally.

I'm not taking it personally, but I don't think continuously misrepresenting my opinion and putting words into my mouth is part of a 'good, hard-hitting debate.' I'll continue to debate with you if you're being respectful and actually reading my posts properly, but until you do that I'm not going to waste my time replying to you.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 10:46pm

I think the jargon that dehumanises women is needed to break down women in the mind of the guy. You say you'd respect PuA more if it didn't have this jargon but then it might not work.

You also mentioned there were better solutions then to fake a personality but didn't mention them. What are they? I think faking a personality is fine. It'sjust the result of your surroundings when you were growing up. If people prefer a certain personify why wouldn't you change yours to fit what people like? If your personality makes people dislike you not faking a better one is self defeating.

I don't really think there is much integrity to a personality anyway, most of it seems faked anyway.

Wibbs · 08-06-2011 10:52pm

liah wrote: »

But why does the jargon have to be so dehumanizing? Do you believe the jargon doesn't influence the mentality to any degree?

I'd say rather the mentality is influencing the jargon on a lot of fronts. Like I say look to teh demographic.

The bit in bold is exactly where my problem with the whole thing lies. Too many guys are doing to to have sex, and forget there's a 'her' involved and fail to consider how she may react to the idea of having PUA used on her.

Yes but many women do similar. All dolled up, preened to within an inch of their lives. Dishonesty writ large in max factor and wonderbra. Think how mad the world is when Cheryl Cole is a spokeswoman for hair products and she's got hair extensions. Imagine william shatner at his peak advertising hair gel. Eh wut?

Both genders have "weapons" at their disposal. For too long it was men's superior position in the world(though that's defo another thread), now it's more equalised and less equalised. I think both genders are struggling in this tbh.

Never denied this. But re: the 'we have chemistry' guff, I honestly don't think it's (always) down to hiding sexual needs/being socially acceptable. I think they actually do believe it when they say it. It's just some kind of feeling you get with someone that you can't put into words and that's really hard to define. It may sound like bs to you but it does happen fo' real and it's not meant to hide anything.

Just like the jargon of men maybe be hiding deeper feelings? Oh yes they may believe it, but I would say as a general thing observing the genders women are sooooo much better at lying to themselves than men are. Among the most intelligent humans I know are women, but at this subject? They run far more on gut/feelings/instinct and then couch it in more esoteric terms after the fact. They also cover it in more BS too. Man asks woman(tm); "how do I find a woman?". Answer? "just be yourself". The daftest answer on gods green earth. It's a "nice" answer, but not the objective truth. Again it has been my experience that women are not as good at the objective when it comes to romance/sex.

I think it's this that some PUAs tend to manipulate - they must know this, and must work their material around it. And I find that a little ethically unstable.

One could argue that women have been "manipulating" access to ass for the same gain?

I don't know, it's not the case for me but I can't speak for anyone else. I'm a very poor manipulator and I'm happy enough that way. :pac:

I really think most women hate it because it makes them feel vulnerable. That's why I hate it, it makes me feel terrified that I'll fall for some player. I just don't like the idea what I could be made a fool of like that.

Change the word "player" for "bitch" and welcome Liah to the man's world? One that they have usually have less control over?

leggo · 08-06-2011 10:52pm

But this is why I'm saying your argument doesn't make sense. When presented with an idea that is one of the MAIN STAPLES of the material, you argue with this...

liah wrote: »

They're not the kind of PUAs I'm talking about.

Just admit you had never heard that phrase before and were caught off guard. Because it leaves you with very little left...

You refuse point blank to discuss pretty much the 'Bible' of the industry and clearly don't understand a lot of the concepts involved in it. You've had to be corrected umpteen times already.

So all you have left is that you dislike manipulative people. And some of the terminology.

But yet, put all of that terminology together, and you admit you've no problem with the idea of it as a whole.

Do you understand why you have such a weak argument now?

Go on, tell me I didn't read your posts. I've pretty much summed them all up in that last one...but, because I disagree, I didn't read them.

Sleepy · 08-06-2011 10:53pm

I can only speak for myself but the terms make me think less of the PUA's that have coined them than the women they refer to with them. I do believe that a lot of it is designed to assist with marketing the techniques and making them as appealing to the type of guy who's most likely to be both in need of and attracted to such systems: those with high logical / analytical skills but poor social skills. It also helps that there are a lot of such individuals who've made a fortune in IT over the past decade or two so there's an eager market for it.

They do, in the midst of terrible jargon, however, often make good points as to the social behaviours that help some men to be successful with women. I can freely admit to taking a few things from the books, modifying them to suit my personality e.g. finding ways of "peacocking" that suited me by wearing clothes that were less about trying to fit in and more about getting across some of my personality, finding ways to stand out in a party / introduce myself to people etc.

Like you say, there's nothing inherently wrong with a lot of the things you can learn from PUA "game". A hell of a lot of it is the old-fashioned "act as if" technique for getting confidence.

The vast majority of people learning these techniques (and I'll include women in this since every teen to twenty-something magazine from 16 to Cosmo includes similar "tips" and "tricks" for "bagging" a man etc.) will use them to attract the attention of someone, get talking to them and then do like the "naturals" say and just be themselves.

Sure, some people will use these techniques to manipulate others but I'd wager no more so than those who have the skills naturally. In fact, I'd wager that many of those who learn such techniques are possibly more likely to appreciate a partner they attract through "game" than someone who can attract that person with no effort whatsoever.

It's a shame you're the only woman posting on this topic tbh. One thing that does strike me is that with such an interest in the PUA scene, a problem with the terminology and technique yet no great issue with building confidence to teach someone how to talk to women, why not develop and market your own "method". You also have the distinct advantage of your sex over the competition

Waking-Dreams · 08-06-2011 10:58pm

I haven’t read every single post in this thread but I just want to address this point:

liah wrote: »

It's the wrong way of going about it because it fails to take into consideration that the person they're talking to probably does not want to be manipulated.

But what is manipulation in this context? Using a ‘technique’ to try and produce a certain response, right? Well, traditionally, men were brought up to bring their love interest flowers or chocolates; “take her out to dinner / buy her presents to show her you care”, etc. but all these behaviours have been executed by men in order to get approval and compliance from women. Women didn't seem to mind a guy bringing flowers and chocolates on a first date, but isn't that act also trying to 'manipulate' them? "Here's a gift for you, so you'll think better of me, because I'm too boring to win you over with just my personality". Today, you'll notice most people DON'T do these things in the beginning because it smacks of trying too hard (manipulation). Things have evolved, which I'll get to later.

Sure, many men can buy a gift and expect nothing in return but honestly, the rule of reciprocity is a human universal. We all pay one another compliments and cooperate because we get something in return. I know what you mean when you read some PUA material which talks about women as though they are cattle but that’s horny men for you. I can’t help but think of Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia.

But it’s not all men, mind.

I read Natasha Walter’s ‘Living Dolls’ just last year and sympathise with how sexism is still rife in today’s world but don’t lose hope in humanity just yet. Also, unfortunately, women play their part in this current set-up too as we have countless reality TV shows and magazine covers which document how happy women are to bear all for some recognition and adulation from “the lads”.

liah wrote: »

What I do have a problem with is the stuff like "HB," "target," "closing," "sarging," all the other lingo used to reduce the entire affair to a manipulation tactic… I just think the jargon, terminology and structure is poorly thought-out, and that a very large part of the PUA community uses it as a means for objectification and manipulation rather than any sort of genuine self-help/improvement.

It is unfortunate that these particular terms are used but I think that’s just how the PUA’s sell/market their services to frustrated “chumps/chodes” (there’s some more lingo for you). These terms are all packaged and couched in hip, trendy language that their target demographic (males aged 18-35) can easily understand and as Wibbs says, it sounds cool and bonds the guys together like they’re on a tactical mission of some sort.

This is a huge industry where old school motivational gurus such as Tony Robbins paved the way for a new breed of guys who offer services and tapes and personal dating coaching at $2,000 a pop. Frustrated men show up to their seminars, drop some cash on tapes and materials and hope to come away with the skills to be more successful in their dating lives.

liah wrote: »

Again, for the 10th time at least, it's NOT the sentiment of the thing I have a problem with. Why do people ignore me every time I say that?

I know you don’t object to the idea of men bettering themselves, just how they approach and treat women. We’re clear on that.

liah wrote: »

At the cost of manipulating woman after woman, at the cost of potentially hurting woman after woman if they find out they've been manipulated, at the cost of viewing an entire gender as nothing more than sex objects, at the cost of becoming insipidly arrogant, at the cost of making women everywhere even more distrustful of men's motives and therefore making it harder on the genuine men who don't use this stuff because now they have to convince us they're not lying, at the potential cost of their own mental health, at the potential cost of probably not being able to forge an actual meaningful relationship with a girl because he's been treating them as objects for so long?

To be honest, I think women are already distrustful of men’s motives and have been for a very long time.

And even a genuine act of buying your girlfriend flowers as a surprise can be met with extreme suspicion from the lady and her girlfriends. “He bought you flowers but there’s no special occasion? He must have cheated on you girl! He’s feeling guilty! I know it because that’s what Claire's bf did and it turned out he cheated on her a week previous!”

If you’ve read The Mating Mind by evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller, and other works by David Buss (‘The Evolution of Desire’) women have been endowed by natural/sexual selection to carefully choose whom they mate with. They're looking for fake signals that the guy is all talk and no genuine article. There’s too much info to go into here but in a nutshell, women have the psychology to figure out what men are up to, eventually. Over time the battle of the sexes will alter and evolve in new ways. Even near the end of Strauss’s book ‘The Game’, he commented on a night where he tried some canned openers and was met with: (and I’m paraphrasing here) “Ugh, yeah, whatever dude, I’ve like heard that exact opener from 50 different guys this week”. So, soon enough all these “tricks” will be known to plenty of women and the sexes will just find new ways of advertising their “fitness indicators” to one another in a whole new fashion.

It’s terrible that there are some assholes that will use this material to out-right lie, cheat and mess up a lot of women by being assholes, but they didn’t need a PUA to turn them to the dark side; chances are they could have been assholes all along and have just gotten much better at it by assimilating some new techniques into their arsenal. I mean, what is the psychology of the women who go for absolute thugs who beat them? There are far worse men out there hurting and manipulating women than some chode who just wants to get to have sex and has to use some techniques but would genuinely like to eventually find a great girl to have a relationship with.

I mean, before all this PUA material came along, men were already trading advice amongst themselves about how best to pick up women that wouldn’t risk rejection.

Valmont wrote: »

Frankly, I think that talking about the poor manipulated women is just degrading. Who's to say they aren't playing their own games? Pushing their own agenda?

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. And indeed there are many books for the ladies on this kind of thing too. ‘The Rules’ contains all kinds of “manipulative” tricks for trying to attract and keep a man, which play the same kind of game. Not to mention women too look at men and make generalisations, the dumbass “jock” with the hot bod that’s good for a ride but not too bright upstairs (the character Jason Stackhouse from ‘True Blood’, anyone?).

I mean, how many times have we heard the women in ‘Sex and The City’ remark, “Men are idiots!”. And I don’t disagree with them; there’s plenty of male buffoons out there, many who are using the PUA material. But that’s not the fault of the material which has helped improve the lives of many men who used it to get over the hump and then ditched all the linear techniques and routines because having done it for a while, it now comes naturally to them and they can “be themselves”.

Wow, that turned into quite the essay.

Mighty_Mouse · 08-06-2011 11:00pm

During that I met and interviewed Neil Strauss and had my work credited by him. We still keep in occasional touch. So I feel quite an authority on the subject.

It's one of the few books I put down deciding that it's the type of information I prefer to live my life without. Stepping into the conversation unknown with women is half the fun.

Plus, it seemed like an awful lot of work for cheap sex.

leggo · 08-06-2011 11:14pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote: »

It's one of the few books I put down deciding that it's the type of information I prefer to live my life without. Stepping into the conversation unknown with women is half the fun.

Plus, it seemed like an awful lot of work for cheap sex.

Each their own dude. If you picked it up just to look for a way to get cheap sex and decided you were getting enough and are happy, more power to you!

Out of interest, though, what provoked you to start reading the book to begin with? You don't have to answer if you don't want to, I'm just curious as to why you'd pick it up to just put it down again. It's the type of book everyone hears about, and knows the score, before they read it after all.

liah · 08-06-2011 11:22pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think the jargon that dehumanises women is needed to break down women in the mind of the guy. You say you'd respect PuA more if it didn't have this jargon but then it might not work.

Why do guys need to break down women? Why can they not just see them as equals, instead of inferior?

You also mentioned there were better solutions then to fake a personality but didn't mention them. What are they? I think faking a personality is fine. It'sjust the result of your surroundings when you were growing up. If people prefer a certain personify why wouldn't you change yours to fit what people like? If your personality makes people dislike you not faking a better one is self defeating.

Because I wouldn't be happy if I was anything other than myself, most people aren't happy faking their way through life. Sure, they may pretend they are for awhile, but I've seen a lot of people crash behind that pretense and lose friends over it. It's not something I'd advise at all. Especially the guilt of lying to everyone all the time.

Better solutions? Seeing a therapist or counsellor, making an effort to be empathetic and caring towards other people (this actually REALLY, REALLY helps, because once you learn that most people tick along similar lines as you, you lose a hell of a lot of fear and begin to really understand why people act how they do, not to mention it helps you to understand yourself a lot better), making an effort to be more honest with yourself about yourself and what you want and who you are - there's a wide variety of solutions that don't involve deception.

I don't really think there is much integrity to a personality anyway, most of it seems faked anyway.

You just haven't met the right people. I know a lot of genuine people - you are far, far too cynical. Not everybody is out to screw you. Honest.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd say rather the mentality is influencing the jargon on a lot of fronts. Like I say look to teh demographic.

Chicken/egg I suppose.

Yes but many women do similar. All dolled up, preened to within an inch of their lives. Dishonesty writ large in max factor and wonderbra. Think how mad the world is when Cheryl Cole is a spokeswoman for hair products and she's got hair extensions. Imagine william shatner at his peak advertising hair gel. Eh wut? Both genders have "weapons" at their disposal. For too long it was men's superior position in the world(though that's defo another thread), now it's more equalised and less equalised. I think both genders are struggling in this tbh.

I dunno. Clothes/makeup don't seem like the same thing to me. They're expressions of who you are for most people. Men can dress to suit their figure just as much as women can, men gel their hair too, etc. Plus there's the whole broader social reasons behind clothes/makeup (e.g. work). Those manipulations don't strike me as nearly as insidious, because at least you can sort of see 'through' them, if you know what I mean.

But I already agreed that women can be just as manipulative as men, and that I'm equally disapproving of that.

Just like the jargon of men maybe be hiding deeper feelings? Oh yes they may believe it, but I would say as a general thing observing the genders women are sooooo much better at lying to themselves than men are. Among the most intelligent humans I know are women, but at this subject? They run far more on gut/feelings/instinct and then couch it in more esoteric terms after the fact. They also cover it in more BS too. Man asks woman(tm); "how do I find a woman?". Answer? "just be yourself". The daftest answer on gods green earth. It's a "nice" answer, but not the objective truth. Again it has been my experience that women are not as good at the objective when it comes to romance/sex.

The 'be yourself' answer comes down to this: if you REALLY, REALLY want to find someone who is suited to you, like, PROPERLY suited to you, one you don't have to lie about yourself to, one that you can feel 100% comfortable with, etc, you really should just be yourself and not give a damn what other people think. Because you can find the best partner imaginable that way - or at least that's what's worked for me.

The only thing other than that is 'be confident in yourself,' i.e. just accept who you are and don't be terrified of talking to people.

Tbh I really don't think that's the worst advice in the world. Again, it's worked incredibly well for me.

One could argue that women have been "manipulating" access to ass for the same gain?

"women?" Generalizations, Wibbs? Really?

Some can. But I reckon a LOT of men misinterpret this (I assume you're referring to withholding, yes?). I've been accused of "withholding," but what it came down to was the fact that I didn't want to have sex with someone I was pissed off at. Because I can't get turned on by someone I'm furious with. Really, it's that simple.

But again, I've never denied women are equally as manipulative.

Change the word "player" for "bitch" and welcome Liah to the man's world? One that they have usually have less control over?

Again, I'm not arguing here.

leggo wrote: »

But this is why I'm saying your argument doesn't make sense. When presented with an idea that is one of the MAIN STAPLES of the material, you argue with this...

Just admit you had never heard that phrase before and were caught off guard. Because it leaves you with very little left...

Dear god man. What is wrong with you? I told you like six times I did not read the book. The book was an example (hence the 'e.g.') to clue people into the subject matter. I don't freaking know what's in the book. I don't freaking CARE what is in the book. I have said as much multiple times.

You're acting like you're 'showing me up,' yet all you're doing is making me repeat myself over and over and over because you refuse to just sit back and LISTEN for a second because you're so obsessed with point-scoring it's ridiculous.

You refuse point blank to discuss pretty much the 'Bible' of the industry and clearly don't understand a lot of the concepts involved in it. You've had to be corrected umpteen times already.

Why would I want to discuss something I haven't read? What purpose would that serve, exactly?

I do understand the concepts involved in it because during the entire freaking thread. I said I had no problem with the ideas behind the book, and what I DO have a problem with is the jargon the community uses. You REFUSE to acknowledge this.

So all you have left is that you dislike manipulative people. And some of the terminology.

But yet, put all of that terminology together, and you admit you've no problem with the idea of it as a whole.

What the feck are you on about?

The terminology is not restricted to the book. I always said I had no problem with the idea of confidence-building and socialization. I always said that the problem was the terminology used and how it objectifies women, and I have given more than enough reasons why. I said throughout the entire thread it's the manipulative ones I don't like.

You are not reading my posts, so stop telling me that you are. You aren't. I have covered all this stuff already.

Do you understand why you have such a weak argument now?

Go on, tell me I didn't read your posts. I've pretty much summed them all up in that last one...but, because I disagree, I didn't read them.

No, you just showed you have no concept of reading comprehension. Honestly, I have no interest in arguing with you anymore. You have no points. I have no idea why you think you do. I would have been more than willing to engage in debate with you had you remained respectful, courteous and actually read what I wrote and stopped misrepresenting what I'm saying. You refused to do so, so I am done arguing with you.

leggo · 08-06-2011 11:29pm

You've always said the problem was the terminology?

It's JUST the terminology?

Okay. Tell me if I've read this correctly, especially the bolded bits.

Because what I'm getting is that you don't want to get 'caught out' or whatever way you want to put it. The terminology argument seems to just be tagging something else onto your own personal issue with it. And it's been explained to you that the objective isn't to 'catch' women out, it's to meet and interact with them.

We can let it go by all means, though. Just let me know if I've read these bits accurately. Because they're your words, not mine.

liah wrote: »

PUA being, of course, Pick Up Artistry, e.g. The Game.

As a potential target of PUA, it unnerves me. Quite a lot, actually. When reading material and terms such as "HB10" (meaning, a "hot body"/girl who's a 10), "target," "k/f/#-close" (kiss/fuck/number "close," i.e. how they ended the encounter), "alpha," "beta," "negging" (insulting a girl to "validate" her), "canned openers," "prize," etc. it strikes me as relentlessly manipulative. It's like turning meeting women into a hunt, or a military strategy. To me, it seems dehumanizing, predatory, selfish, arrogant, and very, very creepy. I would absolutely hate to find out I had been the prey of a player, and frankly it's putting me off dating completely because I just don't want to take the risk.

A lot of men will claim that it teaches otherwise shy/socially inept guys how to socialize by giving them an easy, step-by-step guide to becoming confident and learning how to approach women. Personally, my view is that this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Teaching men to view women as "targets," teaching them how to deliver canned lines and how to say/do something to receive x result, teaching them to manipulate women into bed - none of these seem positive to me, and in fact can be potentially incredibly destructive to everyone the player of the game comes in contact with. It's effectively teaching these poor guys to lie about themselves and to lie to other people for momentary gratification. It's effectively teaching them that women are all the same - dumb and easy to manipulate to get sex, and that their only real purpose is sex. It seems incredibly unhealthy, as anything built on lies and dehumanization tends to be.

But enough about what I think - what are your views on the ethics of Pick Up Artistry? Do you think it's predatory, dehumanizing and manipulative, or do you think it's doing a good deed in helping shy guys build much-needed confidence?

liah · 08-06-2011 11:38pm

leggo wrote: »

You've always said the problem was the terminology?

It's JUST the terminology?

Okay. Tell me if I've read this correctly, especially the bolded bits.

Oh ffs. It's the terminology and the manipulative part of the community (which I have also said, multiple times, throughout the thread). I even freaking said that in my last post for god's sake. You are clearly not reading what I'm saying.

Those bolded bits are down to terminology and community and how I feel about them. They are very clearly about the type of player who is manipulative. I still don't get where you're going with this. As I said, I'm done arguing with you, because you don't want to be respectful and you don't want to listen.

For everyone else I'm still around and will respond to you as long as you don't act like a dick. Just cannot be arsed repeating myself 100 million times in a thread, it's exhausting and frankly, boring.

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 11:47pm

liah wrote: »

Why do guys need to break down women? Why can they not just see them as equals, instead of inferior?

because they start off viewing women as above them. Women also react well to being looked down upon or else this stuff wouldn't work.

Because I wouldn't be happy if I was anything other than myself, most people aren't happy faking their way through life. Sure, they may pretend they are for awhile, but I've seen a lot of people crash behind that pretense and lose friends over it. It's not something I'd advise at all. Especially the guilt of lying to everyone all the time.

but other people are fine with your version of yourself. If certain other people are themselves others will hate then for it because they just aren't likeable. So they will constantly get negative reactions. It's easier to be likeable for a woman because people will like before they even know you

Better solutions? Seeing a therapist or counsellor, making an effort to be empathetic and caring towards other people (this actually REALLY, REALLY helps, because once you learn that most people tick along similar lines as you, you lose a hell of a lot of fear and begin to really understand why people act how they do, not to mention it helps you to understand yourself a lot better), making an effort to be more honest with yourself about yourself and what you want and who you are - there's a wide variety of solutions that don't involve deception.

Telling someone who lacks empathy to have more empathy is like telling a depressed/stressed person to just be less depressed/stressed.

You just haven't met the right people. I know a lot of genuine people - you are far, far too cynical. Not everybody is out to screw you. Honest.

People will react based on how you act. If your personality causes bad reaction you have to fake a different one. There just isn't another option. Your personality is what's causing the problem so saying be yourself is like telling an alco to have a drink stop worrying about being an alco.

The 'be yourself' answer comes down to this: if you REALLY, REALLY want to find someone who is suited to you, like, PROPERLY suited to you, one you don't have to lie about yourself to, one that you can feel 100% comfortable with, etc, you really should just be yourself and not give a damn what other people think. Because you can find the best partner imaginable that way - or at least that's what's worked for me.

If you have a
Personality that pisses people off you don't really want to find someone like you.

The only thing other than that is 'be confident in yourself,' i.e. just accept who you are and don't be terrified of talking to people.

Tbh I really don't think that's the worst advice in the world. Again, it's worked incredibly well for me.

Yea be more confident and poor people just need to get more money. Easier said than done.

leggo · 08-06-2011 11:48pm

I'm not being intentionally disrespectful (and apologies if you take it that way). But you're clearly lying to yourself here. The bolded bits all have one recurring theme "I don't want to be a victim of this."

That's fine, and understandable, but you seem to be rejecting the idea that has been offered that you would not be considered a 'victim' by anyone but yourself in this case.

'The Game' isn't about you or any other women. It is about changing the way a man communicates with women to allow him to showcase his real personality in the best possible light. In other words, just because he's shy doesn't make him boring or undeserved of her attention. And the idea is to right that wrong. Whether you agree with how he gets from A to B or not, it has a great success rate. And one I'd happily explain to you if you listened yourself. But you've made up your mind before you even know the full facts.

The woman would be a benefactor of this, not a victim. Hence the "Leave her better than you found her" ideology that is integral to most, if not all, teachings.

You have ignored several explanations that have been offered for misconceptions that you've built up about this. And you've also ignored polite invitations to further educate yourself on the matter.

If anything, I'm trying to reassure you here. But if you're going to ignore clear and concise attempts to do so, then there's not much anyone can do to qualm your worries, is there?

SugarHigh · 08-06-2011 11:57pm

To expand upon the idea of dragging down their view of women. I don't think it's
possible to take women of their perch and view them as equals in one step. The only way to knock women off that mental perch is to find ways to look down on them. Doing this actually allows you to form relationships which Previously you weren't able to do. Hopefully these relationships will elevate your view of women up to equal status.

So I just view looking down on women as a necessary stage in knocking
Women off their perch and viewing them as equals.

I think stuff like this probably happens
Naturally for most guys even without
PUA.

liah · 08-06-2011 11:59pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

but other people are fine with your version of yourself. If certain other people are themselves others will hate then for it because they just aren't likeable. So they will constantly get negative reactions. It's easier to be likeable for a woman because people will like before they even know you

In fairness though SugarHigh, EVERYONE has people who hate them. Literally everyone. And literally EVERYONE has people who like them (some, obviously, more than others, but it's still true unless the person has secluded themselves from everyone).

There's billions of people in the world, you just gotta find the right ones. You usually can find them by just.. going about your life, doing whatever it is you want to do.

But of course, that's only for any sort of meaningful relationships/friendships/whatever.

I just have trouble ever seeing lying/being fake as a positive thing, and I genuinely don't know how to change that because I just know that if I knew someone was being fake with me or lying to me I would feel disrespected and hurt, and I don't want to make other people feel like that.

Telling someone who lacks empathy to have more empathy is like telling a depressed/stressed person to just be less depressed/stressed.

It's not an on-off switch, but if you actually WANT to become something, generally, you can. You just have to make the effort to remember to think, "okay, now, where are they coming from with this?" - if you need to ask them to find out, do so. I developed my empathy by just listening to others, applying their situations to my character, and seeing how I felt. I guess it's a bit hard to explain, but it worked. Then it was just a matter of "okay, people are treating me poorly because I'm treating them poorly, so I'll treat them how I want to be treated." And on it goes. You just have to keep putting yourself in people's shoes, and really just wanting to be a better person. It's not like I flipped a switch or talked to a psychiatrist or read a self-help book or anything. It's just.. something I wanted to become, and became.

But I suppose with empathy there has to be something in you that wants to care to begin with.

People will react based on how you act. If your personality causes bad reaction you have to fake a different one. There just isn't another option. Your personality is what's causing the problem so saying be yourself is like telling an alco to have a drink stop worrying about being an alco.

No you don't. If your personality causes a bad reaction with someone (or even a lot of people), you move on to the next person, and the next, and the next - however long it takes. Numbers game et al. There's enough people in the world that there'll be a a match'll be out there for you somewhere without you having to compromise yourself too much.

Even murderers can find people.

If you have a
Personality that pisses people off you don't really want to find someone like you.

Yea be more confident and poor people just need to get more money. Easier said than done.

Everything's easier said than done. It doesn't mean that just because it's hard, it's impossible.

Wolfe Tone · 09-06-2011 12:11am

Why do guys need to break down women? Why can they not just see them as equals, instead of inferior?

How are they supposed to do that? Most have fcuk all confidence.

If they have them up on a pedestal they need to break that down, its a simple effective tactic that goes out the window when you get over the initial hurdles and get to know the person, that is, if you want to. It blows the whole rejection thing out of the water because they aren't really rejecting you and anyway, who cares they are random strangers who are not important anyway. This helps guys who put huge weight and significance to the words of random people.

Who gives a damn what some random woman who does not know you or even met you before says? Loads of men do, the PUA stuff helps them believe more in themselves, their self worth etc. By building themselves up, projecting this appearance, reducing these random women to the position they deserve in your life, one of little importance, they stop being afraid of these women.

You need to bear in mind that many people who benefit from this are the type who when shot down carelessly by a woman they are devastated and really beat themselves up about it, blame themselves, and simply become afraid to try. They feel that the rejection is a a traumatic experience. PUA changes all that.

It can change the guy who is simply terrified and thats no exaggeration, of approaching a woman who catches his eye into one who boldly walks up to her straight away and starts talking. Now thats great.

leggo, seen as you said you have helped people with this type of thing some positive stories may be a good idea!

liah, if you have any other suggestions instead of PUA that could help men, lay them out, PUA works and has helped tons of people to live happier and better lives.

I don't think its creepy or wrong at all. I think some of the people who use it are a bit creepy or wrong (in fact the book deals with people like that!) but at its core it is beneficial for everyone. It may be that some have bastardized the core message or whatever, and maybe thats what you are reading about, and I know I have said it before but to really appreciate PUA and the people who practice it you need to read the "bible" of it and see what I guarantee was the introductory text for all those people whose posts you read. You need to see where they started to appreciate how they got to were they are.

liah · 09-06-2011 12:11am

leggo wrote: »

I'm not being intentionally disrespectful (and apologies if you take it that way). But you're clearly lying to yourself here. The bolded bits all have one recurring theme "I don't want to be a victim of this."

Yeah. And I said that. A lot of times.

That's fine, and understandable, but you seem to be rejecting the idea that has been offered that you would not be considered a 'victim' by anyone but yourself in this case.

I don't care who else thinks of me/doesn't think of me as a victim. I do care how I feel about myself. And I would not feel good about finding out I'd been manipulated or lied to by the type of PUAs who aren't exactly savoury. What is so horrible about saying that? How does me saying that make it clear that I don't know what I'm talking about, when it's clear that I'm talking about a very particular subset of the PUA community that I have personally encountered?

Please just leave the thread. You are not adding anything constructive to the debate and are just making me repeat myself despite me telling you many, many times that I am just not interested in engaging with you.

'The Game' isn't about you or any other women. It is about changing the way a man communicates with women to allow him to showcase his real personality in the best possible light. In other words, just because he's shy doesn't make him boring or undeserved of her attention. And the idea is to right that wrong. Whether you agree with how he gets from A to B or not, it has a great success rate. And one I'd happily explain to you if you listened yourself. But you've made up your mind before you even know the full facts.

This proves 100% that you are not reading my posts, I have never said anything to the contrary.

If anything, I'm trying to reassure you here. But if you're going to ignore clear and concise attempts to do so, then there's not much anyone can do to qualm your worries, is there?

No, you just want to get the last word in and frustrate me by forcing myself to repeat myself over and over and over and over because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that I have addressed every single thing in your post at least 10 times. You are finding problems where there are none.

Just leave me the frick alone already, I don't want to repeat myself any more.

SugarHigh wrote: »

To expand upon the idea of dragging down their view of women. I don't it
possible take women of their perch and view them as equals in one step. The only way to knock women off that mental perch is to find ways to look down on them. Doing this actually allows you to form relationships which
Previously you weren't able to do. Hopefully these relationships will elevate your view of women up to equal status.

So I just view looking down on women as a necessary stage in knocking
Women off their perch and viewing them as equals.

I think stuff like this probably happens
Naturally for most guys even with
PUA.

Fair enough. I don't agree that that's a good way to do it, but I understand it, at least. Just wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of their advances.

liah · 09-06-2011 12:17am

Taking a break for the night (1am here), will return to the thread to respond to you Wolfe_Tone (given me a fair bit of food for thought there) and anyone other than leggo who replies after this.

Thanks to the folk who managed to keep it respectful. It's been an enlightening evening.

SugarHigh · 09-06-2011 12:20am

Liah I think you are letting your own experience cloud your judgement. All your story really told was that you didn't lack empathy you were just immature at the time. I think it's kind of like someone with mild non medical depression who manages to snap out of it thinking that someone with a serious depression can do the same.
It's not just about treating people poorly it's about genuinely not knowing how to be nice. I've tried to be nice and it's just not something I can do. There is a lot of stuff in social interaction that simply doesn't make sense if you don't have empathy.

I don't buy into the idea that you should keep searching for people to accept you. I actually think the Internet has done a great disservice to social groups because you can now surround yourself with people just like you. Now matter how obscure your interests you will find a group on the Internet that's into it.

I don't want to be surrounded by people just like because I don't see what there is to gain in being around people just like you. I'd a group of people where no one is even slightly similar. That way there is actually somthing to be gained from talking to them. The only way I can meet different people and not piss them off is to fake a personality. My own personality is too limiting in social situations.

Careful Now · 09-06-2011 12:23am

Sometimes I wonder why the sky is blue.

strobe · 09-06-2011 12:33am

(You're replying to everyone's posts here Liah and it looks exhausting, so don't feel obligated to reply to mine.)

liah wrote: »

I think a lot of guys underestimate how intimidating it can actually be.

I'm sure a lot of guys do but I don't think that means women can just throw out blanket 'your not a woman you wouldn't understand' comments as an argument. It's not an argument, it's a dismissal.

I think I can easily imagine how intimidating it could be for some women.

Okay, I worded that poorly.

It's not that I have a problem with men trying to get women into bed per se. I do have a problem when that's the only reason they're talking to a woman at all. Does that make sense?

Like.. if there were two scenarios, and imagine both are one night stands:

1) a guy runs game on a girl for the sole purpose of having sex and just puts up with her talking to be able to get to the goal and has sex with her, or
2) a guy chats up a girl he finds attractive using game and just enjoys the night with no expectations, and they happen to fall into bed together.

Scenario 1 creeps me out. He's not interested in me, he's not interested in talking to me, he's JUST interested in getting the hole/adding another notch.

Scenario 2 doesn't. He's in it because he wants to have a nice evening, and getting laid is just a bonus, it's not the sole reason for communication.

Do you see what I mean? Like, I mean, I know that realistically they both want to get laid. But to me there's a fundamental difference in the two attitudes, and that's where the creepy factor lies. The desperation factor, or the dehumanizing factor, or a combination of the two, I don't know.

I acknowledge the difference between the two attitudes but it depends on the situation for me. Out in a club slamming Jagerbombers on a Friday night, I don't think there is anything wrong with scenario 1 tbh.

It would be a bit different in a park walking your dogs or whatever but I still wouldn't find it 'creepy' if a women approached me, got talking to me and I realised she was primarily interested in sex.

I think we have little hope of seeing eye to eye on this point though. Sometimes (obviously not always) for me sex is is just a physical act. Like a sport, or hobby, for want of a better term. You seem to view it differently. On occasion I don't much care if the person I'm playing tennis with studied journalism or loves rainbows. I just think they look like good players and want to play a couple of sets with them. If that makes sense...

I was getting the impression from the flurry of replies here that it's meant to be a tool for guys to build confidence in general and learn how to socialize with women, not solely to bed them. Okay. Now it's back to being a bit creepy.

I think if anyone is implying that then they are being disingenuous. The PUA stuff is quite clearly focused on 'getting them into bed'.

Having said that though, having the 'tools' to bed a woman doesn't mean you can't also see her as a wonderful human being and want to get to know her, find out everything she is interested in, fall madly in love with her and grow old together looking at your grand kids playing in the field outside your country cottage. I was in love with my last girlfriend, we were living together etc, but I 'picked her up' in a pub in town. It's not mutually exclusive.

leggo · 09-06-2011 12:35am

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

leggo, seen as you said you have helped people with this type of thing some positive stories may be a good idea!

No problem man.

A good mate of mine decided to come to me and ask if we could go out. I've since seen him transform his life from a guy who'd show off to girls (be 'a performing monkey' as I called it) and get nowhere, cheat on the girls he was with, to becoming a level-headed, rounded person in his first, proper relationship. He's got his career sorted, just moved into a beautiful home, got a car etc. I'm so proud to see his transformation. It's not down to me (I just nudged him in the right direction when he needed it and offered a listening ear), but it's incredible to see.

Same with the guy who is probably my best mate. On the radio show I used to do with him we did a feature about how he was a virgin at 20 and wanted to change it. It was enlightening to say the least. He learned about the pick-up arts and went on to do great things with his life. As a guy who used to bury his head in the sand, not go out much, become obsessed with little 'gimmicks' and would have wasted away in a part-time job not considering himself worthy of anything better...he's gone back to college in order to get a green card and complete his dream of moving to America. The self-motivated, go-getter I see now is a complete reversal of the man I got to know to begin with. He has the same hobbies and interests but now he knows how to make life work for him.

A guy who contacted me from abroad (won't get into specifics) still struggles with the basics with women, he has some ish to overcome, but has transformed his life otherwise. He is a pilot and has completed his full licence yolkymabob, gone back to playing music and gigged as backing to one of the X Factor contestants not so long ago, and most recently got a speaking role in a pretty big movie I can't tell you about. This whole motivation spurt came after he decided to help himself.

I could go on...

Now, I don't take credit for all of these. Like I said, they had it in them and just needed a push. But it goes to show it's not all about getting women into the sack and does have a massive effect on your life. This is why I can never take people who criticise it seriously, especially if they've got the facts so wrong. Women are just the enticing cherry on top. The bait, if you will, to do amazing things you never thought possible.

Earthhorse · 09-06-2011 12:53am

Interesting thread. It's impossible to dip a into a community, any community, and know all the actions that have taken place and the motivations behind them. An online community such as r/seduction might give you some idea but it is also likely skewed toward a particular segment of the community. How many of the millions who have read The Game have gone on to join the PUA community and then post about it online? What qualifies one as a practitioner of PUA? If you use single technique you read about once? If you adapt some of their techniques to your own personality?

It seems to me the practise is too broad to be realistically quantified and assessed. I believe you if you tell me that some of the stories you've read online are a little creepy but I also think the kind of people who share the sordid details are of a particular type that PUA brings out the worst in.

Having read The Game I would say that much of the better material is often ignored by critics but there is still much to be critical of. The fact that there are other people out there manipulating their way through life is not a good defence of the ethics of PUA; indeed such an argument is a warning sign that what they're doing is unethical.

However, I do feel that the criticisms are overstated. It may not be ethical, indeed I would say some of the theory and much of the practise (with the caveat that it is hard to measure), is obviously not but it is no less unethical that many of our long standing social norms. From that point of view it seems unfair to single out PUA simply because he's the new kid on the block.

SugarHigh · 09-06-2011 1:20am

liah wrote: »

It's not an on-off switch, but if you actually WANT to become something, generally, you can. You just have to make the effort to remember to think, "okay, now, where are they coming from with this?" - if you need to ask them to find out, do so. I developed my empathy by just listening to others, applying their situations to my character, and seeing how I felt. I guess it's a bit hard to explain, but it worked. Then it was just a matter of "okay, people are treating me poorly because I'm treating them poorly, so I'll treat them how I want to be treated." And on it goes. You just have to keep putting yourself in people's shoes, and really just wanting to be a better person. It's not like I flipped a switch or talked to a psychiatrist or read a self-help book or anything. It's just.. something I wanted to become, and became.

But I suppose with empathy there has to be something in you that wants to care to begin with.

The problem with this is that you are trying to view their perspective but first you are looking through your own. So it's your minds eyes view of what you think their minds eye view is. Your view distorts your perception of their view.

When you lack empathy and try and look through someones else's minds eye you can only ever get a perspective from someone who lacks empathy but you are trying to transpose this view onto someone who doesn't lack empathy.

I don't know if I've explained that well but trying to see through someone else's eye's only really works if you are both somewhat similar. Now a lot of people convince themselves they are good at reading other peoples thoughts but really they just place their own thoughts into that persons minds and confirmation bias does the rest.

Basically in short, me trying to look through someone else's is just embarrassingly pointless because what I come up with his normally way off the mark to what they're really feeling. I just genuinely don't know how other people feel about things and I'm quite cynical of their emotional responses because I don't know when they're real or not.

Wibbs · 09-06-2011 9:43am

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/ or .co.uk or wherever. Indeed pick any general "woman's" magazine and they break down as Fashion, lifestyle, celebs and relationship/sex advice. How to read/get/have orgasms with/keep/dump a man. Relationships and relationship dynamics(not just romantic either) play a much greater, more complex role in women's lives. Men IME very rarely discuss relationships, except when one breaks down or when introducing a new one and even then detail is scant. Hell many women will complain the man they're actually with barely discusses such.

On average women drive and know how to drive romantic/sexual relationships more than men. Even in highly gender biased societies like Saudi Arabia the relationship dynamic is still largely driven by women. They may not see their own manipulation of the relationship dynamic, but I've seen it in women mates. I think manipulation is too pejorative a word. We're all manipulators. It's what all social animals do. We just dress it up in fancy clothes to satisfy our own intellects. Women IMHO do the latter more than men, or moreso are less likely to see it as manipulation. It's just "what they do".

OK question for ya L

look around at your women friends and men friends. Look at your own life. Now ask the question who did more breaking off of relationships? Who turned down more offers? Who has an opposite sex mate they know is into them but they want to "keep the friendship"? Unless you've an unusual demographic around you, I'll put good money it's the ladies.

In our society it's even more mad if we step back for a moment. On the appearance front. On the surface at least women sexual/romantic/partner status is much more based on looks and age and specifically reproductive health. How many products are bombarding women on how to "lie" about that. Walk into an average nightclub at midnight and watch the heel highed staggering parade of two legged max factor mistruths before you. An Alien observer would have a field day. We look askance at the practise of Chinese foot binding in the past, yet modern western women are deemed to look their best while on very expensive stilts crushing their toes. They may have pushup bras, control pants, tights/stockings, fake tan, makeup and wouldn't have a clue what their real hair colour was if you spiked their Mai Tai's with sodium pentathol. They could have all this at 18 when "at their peak" and it's all "manipulation". Of course they dress for each other, it's not just peacocking and in other cultures men do similar, but regardless of the gender these practises are, at a very basic level tools to increase their chances of reproductive success. A level not immediately obvious 6 pints down wearin the face of some bloke in corner of a club, but still there. There have even been studies that showed women tend to wear less clothing and shorter skirts when ovulating.

Women have more of these tools at their disposal when compared to men. Particularly young women and young men. PUA ia overwhelmingly aimed at younger men* who are in general at a serious disadvantage with women of the same age. The latter hold all the cards. This goes double for a man who hasn;t learned how to interact with women romantically. Today more men encounter more women on a daily basis than in the past. Men and women have many more friendships than in the past. Men learn how to be women's friends before they learn how to be their lovers. That's confusion right there and far more men have gotten "let's be friends" than the other way around.

PUA is full of poo, or at least the basic truths are dressed up in a lot of flim flam. It's also very culturally biased. IMHO it works more on american women because America is quite an unrelaible and scary society for the individual. There is very little of a safety net if you fall while reaching for the american dream. You can go from middle class middle management to living in your car quite quickly through job loss(or for men divorce). In such a society women are more likely to look for the "alpha" male as a safer bet should she need it. The brash go getter type looks more of a safe bet. There are other gender/psychological/social reasons other parts of PUA may work IMHO, but that's for another thread.:o Mostly for most it's a numbers game though. Most guys who cant get a woman are like fishermen who cant get fish. They leave their net in the boat.

My 3 cents.

I'm speaking in general of course, but generally this is the case IMHO and IME.

*Though an encounter a year or so ago with a UK based "guru" gave me more insight on that score. Nice bloke actually. If you were another bloke. He was making serious cash and while we were chatting he made the point that the business was thinking of branching out to inclde older men. The demographic that "got lucky" at say 22, been with the same woman for 10-15-whatever years and are now divorced/separated and clueless.

Scanlas The 2nd · 09-06-2011 9:52am

liah wrote: »

Presumably, one is being himself, and the other has a constant internal dialogue in his head telling him when to deliver such-and-such a line, when to start kino, when to k-close, when to #-close, etc.
.

That's just in the beginning and a phase you go through. After a while it becomes natural and instinctive and it brings out your natural attractive personality that never would have come out if PUA had not intervened. I think you mentioned only insecure people use PUA. Most people could be called insecure. Calum Best got interested in PUA recently even though he was already great with women. He's on youtube having a discussion with Richard La Ruina aka "Gambler" about it. He mentions how he used to analyze situtions and he was aware of people's game without any knowledge of PUA.

I want to clear something up about negs. They get terrible press.
The purpose of them is to show in a subtle way that you are not spellbound by a beautiful woman the way other men are. The purpose of them is not to insult a woman. It is to get her chasing you and adding investment/putting in effort to the interaction.

Blowing your nose in the presence of a beautiful woman is a neg. Hardly the evil insult that it is made out to be. As was said before, men and women neg naturally already without any knowledge of it.

The Ethics of PUA

Comments