PUAs in Dublin

Earthhorse

Wibbs wrote: »

Not so long ago, the only women a man would have in his life were either family or lover/wife. That was it. having women friends would be unusual. Indeed maybe even frowned upon.

Not so sure I agree. I think you might be underestimating previous generations in this regard. What I will agree with you on is that they were friends in different ways and that boundaries and interactions have changed. Far more women in the workplace these days to give but one example. But that's not to say that men didn't have female friends in the past. Of course they did.

One big shift that is underestimated, in my opinion, is the move away from "quieter" socialising. Barn dances. Church fairs. The kind of places shyer people might meet have been sucked away and there's a vacuum left in their wake. In part, this has been filled by the interent, online dating but it ain't the same in my opinion. This leaves people cycnical about the major way in which people meet up - pubs, clubs. They are right to be cynical, as people are right to be cynical about PUA, but you can't deny there are good reasons both exist.

Dudess

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You'd be opposed to any kind of conscious effort to change one's behaviour in order to improve the quality of one's life?

Not all. Putting on an act - yes.

A conscious review of one's behaviour coupled with some insight into how attraction works in order to appear more attractive to the opposite sex, is not.

I like people who just talk, y'know, have non forced conversations.

Earthhorse

Have you actually read The Game, Dudess? You should you know. It's a good biography if nothing else.

It's the only PUA material I've read and I'd agree with JC 2K3. There is some jaw droppingly awful stuff in it but a lot of isn't as bad as people make out.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

Have you actually read The Game, Dudess? You should you know. It's a good biography if nothing else.

i've read a bit of it, one of the lads i lived wit had it and i agree.. it's like a really entertaining biography.

until you read it, you'd think it's just chapters dedicated to different elements of chat up.. but its actually jus a big story really.

kind of like tucker max

JC 2K3

Dudess wrote: »

I like people who just talk, y'know, have non forced conversations.

Define "forced".

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have excellent communication and interaction skills, and becoming good at it isn't always something that can happen naturally. Initially, when learning to become better at this, one needs to make the effort to actually interact with others in situations where they previously wouldn't, or would do so in a more reserved manner. This can be viewed as engaging in "forced" conversation, I guess, but it's just about building confidence and learning social skills.

Dudess

Fair enough. I do agree that those who find it difficult to just relax and chat away need to build up their confidence and believe in themselves more - but a bunch of cheesy wooing "techniques" - what a turn-off.

super_furry

The whole thing just seems really really creepy to me, kinda like tricking people into having sex with them.

Earthhorse

That's the point though. It isn't really about a buch of cheesy wooing "techniques". That's only a small part of it.

*adjusts giant novelty hat*

Wibbs

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not so sure I agree. I think you might be underestimating previous generations in this regard. What I will agree with you on is that they were friends in different ways and that boundaries and interactions have changed. Far more women in the workplace these days to give but one example. But that's not to say that men didn't have female friends in the past. Of course they did.

Oh they did and it wasn't that black and white, but not nearly to the degree of today. My great grandmother had male friends through her brothers, but she herself told me it was often frowned upon, especially if they weren't meeting as part of a group. My grandmother the same. When I think of my older male rellies and have actually asked them this recently they agreed. They had some women friends but it was not to the degree they see in their grandkids and they certainly didn't keep in contact after they married. They had regret about that too. The sexes were more separate. There were more single sex schools, so less mixing there for a start. Throw in the church in ireland too.The work angle is one of the biggest changes as you say.

One big shift that is underestimated, in my opinion, is the move away from "quieter" socialising. Barn dances. Church fairs. The kind of places shyer people might meet have been sucked away and there's a vacuum left in their wake. In part, this has been filled by the interent, online dating but it ain't the same in my opinion.

Very good point. Never looked at it like that. yep.

This leaves people cycnical about the major way in which people meet up - pubs, clubs. They are right to be cynical, as people are right to be cynical about PUA, but you can't deny there are good reasons both exist.

+1

Wibbs

Dudess wrote: »

Fair enough. I do agree that those who find it difficult to just relax and chat away need to build up their confidence and believe in themselves more - but a bunch of cheesy wooing "techniques" - what a turn-off.

I would presume if he's doing it right you won't even spot it. I mean someone like Derren Brown can convince people of all sorts of stuff and appear to be psychic precisely because people click into this stuff without even knowing. People have common triggers. People are more easily led than they believe, which makes mr Brown look so amazing. He circumvents the logical mind and does the oul mental slight of hand and switcheroo. Hell advertising plugs into so many triggers.

Now given the reproductive and mate choice mechanism is very complex and open to triggers, obvious and unobvious, I would say the PUA's at worst plug into that and the really good ones do so very well. Indeed I would reckon that mate "choice" is like an iceberg, 90% of it is unconscious. I would also reckon that in women it's even more so. They go with their gut more, or maybe they go with more subtle triggers than men. How many men have you heard use terms like "spark" or "The one". How many women have been attracted to a guy you would normally never go for and cant figure out why, compared to men? There are general differences.

Earthhorse

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh they did and it wasn't that black and white, but not nearly to the degree of today. My great grandmother had male friends through her brothers, but she herself told me it was often frowned upon, especially if they weren't meeting as part of a group. My grandmother the same. When I think of my older male rellies and have actually asked them this recently they agreed. They had some women friends but it was not to the degree they see in their grandkids and they certainly didn't keep in contact after they married. They had regret about that too. The sexes were more separate. There were more single sex schools, so less mixing there for a start. Throw in the church in ireland too.The work angle is one of the biggest changes as you say.

That's all very well. But what do you think of my giant novelty hat?

In fairness, you seem to have asked more about this than I. I didn't know my grandparents so don't have that frame of reference. I know my mom did give up a lot of her social life when she became a mom but that wasn't solely a male friend thing, I don't think.

Wibbs

Earthhorse wrote: »

That's all very well. But what do you think of my giant novelty hat?

Tis only deadly.:)

In fairness, you seem to have asked more about this than I. I didn't know my grandparents so don't have that frame of reference.

It was just something that I was interested in finding out so just asked really. They had their own theories too.:)

I know my mom did give up a lot of her social life when she became a mom but that wasn't solely a male friend thing, I don't think.

Naw I reckon that's natural enough. Its a whole new phase of life I suppose.

NickNolte

Wibbs wrote: »

What do women want(deeeep breath:D)? They want a man. They want an emotionally secure and emotionally consistent man. They want a confident and emotionally independent man. They want a man who will fight for and defend his position, because she feels secure he'll do the same for her. They want a man other men look up to and other women find attractive. They want a man to be in control of his environment and will set boundaries in that environment. They even want that control to extend to them sometimes. Controversial? perhaps, but IMHO, a man who says yes all the time, will soon have a woman(if he even gets one) saying no more of the time. Respecting a man for being who he needs to be is very very attractive to most women and they feel freer to be themselves around him, both inside and outside the bedroom. They want a man who is exciting and not boring. A man that challenges them emotionally, without being abusive or weak about it. They want a man to compliment their worldview and a man who understands them, in a different way to how another woman would. They have other women for that(men make this mistake a lot. Friendzone types and "nice guys". They want a man who respects and wants their need to grow and to help them do it. Women more than men feed off the feelings and emotional state of others. If you're not relatively secure and together, she'll feel insecure around you and sooner or later it'll be game over.

So, in a nutshell, women are insecure and need a secure man. :pac:

Wibbs

Nope. They may be secure or insecure, it matters not, but in general women respond more than men to the social and emotional landscape around them. If they're with an insecure man, they'll feel that insecurity internally and go off him. Either straight away or down the line when they dump him.

NickNolte

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. They may be secure or insecure, it matters not, but in general women respond more than men to the social and emotional landscape around them. If they're with an insecure man, they'll feel that insecurity internally and go off him. Either straight away or down the line when they dump him.

Yeah... I don't think anyone likes being with an insecure partner. Man or woman.

Maldini2706

Earthhorse wrote: »

I like the fact that this thread has been resurrected in the run up to valentines. :cool:

Haha, completely coincidental

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The misogyny rampant in this PUA stuff is hilarious.

'Yeah I can't talk to or socially interact with a woman under normal circumstances so why don't I use an aggressive psychological technique to try and knock that stuck-up bitch off her pedestal, she'll be crawling to me on her hands and knees before the night is over!!'

Retards.

Again, you seem like one of the people who preaches from a point of ignorance. There's nothing in the stuff I read about that could be classified as "aggressive" or "knocking somone off a pedestal". The whole negging thing (if I understood it correctly) is playful flirting to make a woman think you're not interested (and so make them a bit more relaxed) that's hardly "aggresive"

I'm sure some guys use this stuff aggressively, but that's the difference between a tool and its user. A hammer can be used as a weapon, that's not what it was designed for though.

Dudess wrote: »

Wow, a guy using "techniques" to chat up a girl - could there be anything more unattractive? Let's see... nope.

Every guy uses "techniques" whether they even realise it or not. Most of the "techniques" I've seen lads use are far more aggressive and obvious than anything in this book as well

Anyway, ever heard the phrase "hard to get"? Is that not a technique?

I think all this "PUA" stuff has done is throw together all the stuff that naturally charismatic guys were using, stick stupid names on it and then make it available.

TwoShedsJackson

Maldini2706 wrote: »

Again, you seem like one of the people who preaches from a point of ignorance. There's nothing in the stuff I read about that could be classified as "aggressive" or "knocking somone off a pedestal". The whole negging thing (if I understood it correctly) is playful flirting to make a woman think you're not interested (and so make them a bit more relaxed) that's hardly "aggresive"

From earlier in the thread, from consultech:

If it was a load of hooey it wouldn't be as widely regarded, discussed. PUA psychology/theory is a tool to knock self-obsessed (albeit hot) bitches off their pedestals, and into your bed. It comes naturally to some people, but the guys in the PUA scene take it to scientific extremes, and it works.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Fair enough. I do agree that those who find it difficult to just relax and chat away need to build up their confidence and believe in themselves more - but a bunch of cheesy wooing "techniques" - what a turn-off.

I've been using Speed Seduction techniques for about 7-8 years now. Originally, I read the stuff from Mystery, De Angelo, Tucker, Seduction.Alt.fast, etc but it wasn't for me. It was too obvious, and i couldn't use the material with a straight face... seemed too silly and in some cases outright nasty. Neg Hitting is horrible..

I have only ever once used a chat up line, and its a rather good one. But in any case, not all the PUA mentors suggest obvious approaches. Personally, I like the Ross Jeffries Team with Dave Reiker, (although it has splintered in the last few years) because it teaches you that women will see through any pretense you're putting on in order to sleep with them. That subconsciously women will pick on the crap, and be turned off it.

So instead of cheesy chat-up lines, he focuses more on the structure of language, NLP, self-hypnosis, Visualization, centering oneself etc. Its more about shaping the person wanting to Sarge/pull than just putting on a mask for the night. They do teach you phrases and structured sentences, but these are placed in a sentence as part of a normal conversation to elicit an emotional change in the woman you're talking to.

The thing is that many men do not know how to talk to women, and better yet how to flirt with them. Women learn these things from an early age, and this material just seeks to teach us how to speak & think on the same wave length as women. It gives us the tools and understanding to be able to talk to any woman and feel confident in doing so. Its more about personal development than anything else, since it places emphasis on changing the user rather than focusing on the woman in all things. And its helped me in thousands of ways non related to picking up women in the last few years.

Nowadays, I just talk to women. I don't think about any phrases or such. Its part of my subconscious to talk a certain way. If i meet a bitch, i can deal with it without any anger, I don't feel any real disappointment in not pulling a girl, and I'm always ready to meet girls. It was also useful in getting me out of clubs, and being able to pull girls at bus stops, on the street, in bookstores, department stores etc. At aged 31 i'm still able to pull a hot 18 year old, which is ok in my book. Awesome material.

Wibbs

Actually if self obsessed ego hounds "bitches" are the easiest to pull, if that's what you want to go for. The self obsession doesn't come from a healthy secure place so they're less confident not more. Yes they may appear to be and they act it well as they'll have a succession of drunken yahoos coming up to them all night. That just papers up the cracks though. Fine if you just want a legover, but not much cop beyond that.

TwoShedsJackson raises a good point, but even if it was all true, you would still have the extremes of those who would pursue it. Especially considering the guys who would plug into this stuff. By it's very nature a large amount of them will be guys who have few social skills when it comes to women. All too often those type of men will have entitlement issues or low level agression towards women they couldn't get in the past. The revenge angle. Dumb though. Of course the low level aggression is actually aimed at themselves for the most part. The women who "done them wrong" are just a smokescreen.

I do think on many levels this movement may have some good insights into what women may want in a particular situation. What one does with those insights is another thing. While life can be very complex and nuance exists in all aspects of life, we can reduce it to simplistic general terms. Wanna lose weight? Eat less move more. Horribly simplistic but for the vast majority true. Skinny guy? want to build muscle? Eat more, lift heavy weights. Again horribly simplistic but again for the most part true. Want to be successful with women? Be a confident, emotionally secure Man tm, who doesn't need women, but chooses to have them in his life and lets them into that life for the benefit of both. Not a Sappy Girlboy or Badboy tm who needs external validation all the time.

Now whether you wanna lose weight, pump your muscles or get more women, it does help if you have some map to follow, but the basics remain the same and it takes work for all of the above.

It still interesting from a psychological point of view though.

mud

The Scientist wrote: »

try to steal her nose.

:pac: You had me when you tried to steal my nose

consultech

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

From earlier in the thread, from consultech:

Now if only I were a respected PUA authority - or even a practising PUA for that matter - would quoting me as a basis for "scene" opinion be quasi-relevant.

Dudess

Deleted User wrote: »

Nowadays, I just talk to women.

And wouldn't you agree it's the best strategy of all?

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

And wouldn't you agree it's the best strategy of all?

Yes, but it takes more than just talking to women to be successful with them. Some men can do it easily while growing up, but not all guys are so lucky. You could talk to hundreds of women and never develop the personal skills to flirt, impress, and interest women. Sometimes, its best to look at other people who have succeeded at this (or anything really), and learn from them.

Nowadays I just talk to women, but the skills i learnt while doing the Speed Seduction material will always be there in the background. I'm just not consciously accessing them.

S.I.R

Deleted User wrote: »

The point about the stuff you learn from Mystery and the others is that you CAN pull anywhere. Too much of Irish dating lore revolves around the pub & night club. This sort of stuff helps you to get out of those places and get women anywhere... although nightclubs are generally too noisy.

For myself, i've been into this for years. Mostly from a NLP point of view. I've read Mystery, & David DeAngelo. Pretty rubbish IMO. They're both from the days of the Seduction.Alt.fast groups, and lean too much towards degrading women and stupid pick up lines... Not my sort of thing.

I've been to three seminars for Ross Jeffries, and have a number of his products. This guy is much much better than his competition, and his stuff actually works. On a personal level, he's also the best for self-confidence levels, since he focuses more on psychology than bull****ting people.

I must admit i haven't used any of the techniques for years. I just don't need them anymore. Its now just the case of having confidence in myself. But I know that RJ's teachings are there in the back of my head all the same...

i use a mixture of intelligence, witt and brain farts to pull... or just open the wallet up and say " how much " or " do ya charge by the hour or ?? "


once their laughing, your " in their like swim wear " as Rev Run likes to say.

banshee_bones

OK have to say after 14 pages I am still none the wiser.


Are these "PUA's" simply looking to use easy opening lines to get a womans attention and hold it long enough to get enough drink in to them with the hope of it ending in a one night stand?

or

are these PUA's simply guys with low self esteem/confidence who find it hard to approach women in bars clubs and or groups of women?

S.I.R

their basically noobs with no substance/backbone... dont let it worry you, their immune to verbal abuse but ive got my +1 mace so everything will work out great.

consultech

S.I.R wrote: »

their basically noobs with no substance/backbone... dont let it worry you, their immune to verbal abuse but ive got my +1 mace so everything will work out great.

Stop d lights, I'm immune to mace at this stage. The smell has actually grown on me by now!

SoWatchaWant

"Pick up Artist"...

Well, the name says it all. Horribly sleazy road to go down

ShooterSF

banshee_bones wrote: »

OK have to say after 14 pages I am still none the wiser.


Are these "PUA's" simply looking to use easy opening lines to get a womans attention and hold it long enough to get enough drink in to them with the hope of it ending in a one night stand?

or

are these PUA's simply guys with low self esteem/confidence who find it hard to approach women in bars clubs and or groups of women?

No. And no. Say you had a friend who was a saleman, lets say he could "sell sand to the arabs" or "snow to eskimos" whatever phrase you want. Now let's say you too are a salesman but are not as skilled. Most self-improvement books (any NLP or such) would suggest you study what works for your friend and implement it yourself. Imitate his doing to imitate his success as such.
Now imagine instead of sand or snow your selling yourself to women. The same rules apply here. Oh and don't for a second thing it's not the women who are the buyers in this situation
Unfortunately some people take it to extremes, some only read certain parts (like negs) completely misunderstand them and mock it. Then there are guys with low self-esteem who think it's all down to looks/money and he'd be wasting his time doing anything to improve his skills.
Also the whole "openers" thing is very misunderstood too. The idea behind them is that they are training wheels to get you to talk to people (not even just women you fancy) to build confidence in starting conversations. A lot of guys can't get passed that stage.
Anywho I have football, if you really want to know more fire off a question

NickNolte

banshee_bones wrote: »

are these PUA's simply guys with low self esteem/confidence who find it hard to approach women in bars clubs and or groups of women?

Yes.