The Ethics of PUA

Wibbs

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm not extrapolating my personal experience. You could say you're extrapolating your experience with your exes onto all women.

No not my exes, women friends. I left my exes out of it. Probably for good reason!

It's fact, wibbs, fact. Find me any study that has asked women if they feel anything vaginally and the answers are always the same 70/80 percent-no, 20/30 percent-yes. The majority cannot feel a thing, the minority can.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/vaginal-orgasm-associated-vaginal-not-clitoral-sex-education-focusing-mental-attention-vaginal-sensations-intercourse-duration-preference-longer-penis/ Survey of 1000 Czech women and out of that number 29 report never having one, which of course says that 71% had. Hardly a majority not feeling a thing. Bit of a diff from the usual stat trotted out. The reverse in fact.

The history of the vaginal orgasm is an interesting one. Freud that purveyer of dodgy notions and male based agendas fired the opening salvo, claiming that clit orgasms were somehow immature and mature sexually healthy women(they're all hysterical you know?) transferred this to vaginal orgasms. Nonsense of course. He(and others) also added in a defined either/or mindset to this, that following researchers stuck to. Ignoring the obvious overall effect. Then some feminist writers with their own agendas hoved into view in the 60's and 70's, throwing out this Freudian notion, claiming very few women got pleasure this way from men(yes those oppressive bastards) and the pendulum swung the other way. Too much IMHO. Personally and IMHO rather than focusing on the either/or I'd split it more along the lines of orgasms achieved through male female straight sex and those achieved outside of that. Where all over sensations get a woman there. IE rather than ask women vaginal or clitoral orgasms, ask them do they orgasm during coitus, how often etc. In that case I'd put down good money the outcome would follow the above Czech study.

There are some other interesting areas of research into this. One wacky one is that trained observers can tell if a woman is orgasmic through sex by watching video of them walking. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18637995 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26676622/ns/health-sexual_health/t/your-walk-may-reveal-more-you-think/ Other factors in sexual satisfaction and in particular this area are linked with better mental and physical health.

I think men find it hard to accept this because they want to think their penis equals explosive tool of pleasure when this is not the case and more effort is required.

Oh I agree and I'd go back to Freud thinking along the same male centred lines. Other research into this has shown that outside the woman and no matter how tuned in she is and emotionally healthy she is, the speed, duration and size of the partner in the trouser dept makes much of the difference to her getting there or not. If the guy is physically unhealthy, hasn't a clue, is underwhelming in "physique" or is finished in seconds then no matter how orgasmic a woman is she's not gonna get there.

Reward Hunter wrote:

Men gotta own their women, make them succumb to them, ravage them.

Are you serious?

leggo wrote:

And how the hell did we get onto this anyway?!?

I would suggest that it's another angle along the lines of "men don't get women at all" just hitting more below the belt. Actually that idea is a common meme out there among men and women and has been for many years. "Oh you can never understand a woman, you know. We're/They're unknowable"(women come out with similar about men, but not to the same degree). Clearly utter nonsense. Examples of both genders use it as an excuse in my view. Easier to say ahh you're unknowable than actually make the effort to try. They're not space aliens. We're people, and as people are as easy to understand or not as individuals. There are men I can't fathom too well and their are women I can't fathom too well, but I'd have a fair idea with most people.

leggo

Wibbs wrote: »

I would suggest that it's another angle along the lines of "men don't get women at all" just hitting more below the belt. Actually that idea is a common meme out there among men and women and has been for many years. "Oh you can never understand a woman, you know. We're/They're unknowable"(women come out with similar about men, but not to the same degree). Clearly utter nonsense. Examples of both genders use it as an excuse in my view. Easier to say ahh you're unknowable than actually make the effort to try. They're not space aliens. We're people, and as people are as easy to understand or not as individuals. There are men I can't fathom too well and their are women I can't fathom too well, but I'd have a fair idea with most people.

Yeah and I would go one further and charge that this feeling is crucial towards our breeding process: the insistence that we are unique and different as a means of setting us apart from 'the competition'.

Which of course is ridiculous. We are but one species (albeit a complex one) constrained by human nature. The only thing that differs and makes us individuals are circumstances and the sum of our collective parts. So to state that we couldn't possibly be understood is a massive misnomer, but also perfectly natural at the same time.

Wibbs

leggo wrote: »

Yeah and I would go one further and charge that this feeling is crucial towards our breeding process: the insistence that we are unique and different as a means of setting us apart from 'the competition'.

There may well be something to that alright L, but TBH given a choice between a more complex answer and a less complex one in people in general, I go for the latter and in this case I reckon most of all it's down to laziness. Like people who will say things like "Oh I can't work computers/cars/washing machines/etc, they're too complex for little old me". Pure laziness or indeed simple stupidity. It can also come from a built in unhealthy and or defeatist worldview. I can't understand women, they're all bitches mentality. Rather than look to themselves and where they need to cop on, learn from mistakes and move forward. Ditto for women who come out with this stuff in reverse.

leggo

Wibbs wrote: »

leggo wrote: »

Yeah and I would go one further and charge that this feeling is crucial towards our breeding process: the insistence that we are unique and different as a means of setting us apart from 'the competition'.

There may well be something to that alright L, but TBH given a choice between a more complex answer and a less complex one in people in general, I go for the latter and in this case I reckon most of all it's down to laziness. Like people who will say things like "Oh I can't work computers/cars/washing machines/etc, they're too complex for little old me". Pure laziness or indeed simple stupidity. It can also come from a built in unhealthy and or defeatist worldview. I can't understand women, they're all bitches mentality. Rather than look to themselves and where they need to cop on, learn from mistakes and move forward. Ditto for women who come out with this stuff in reverse.

I agree but see it as more of an applied laziness. We are more than capable of understanding even the most complex concepts as long as we have a need for them, and they fit in with our pre-existing notions.

Women are far more susceptible to this than men because their struggles and insecurities, I find, are often more complex than men's. Whereas men need to understand a problem fully, think it through logically then solve it. Women, on the other hand, are creatures of emotion. Of course there are exceptions on both sides and, by nature of this conversation, I expect 100% of women involved to declare themselves the exception.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

Of COURSE lying and manipulation are skills. But context is key here: we're talking about seduction and romance here. If I was an undercover CIA agent trying to infiltrate a terrorist cell, lying would be essential towards my survival! That's not what we're discussing though...

If you need to lie to a woman in the context of wooing her, then the only purpose it has is to deceive her into believing you're something you're not. And the only excuse for doing that is that you're ashamed of who you are. Plus the truth will always out, one way or another, even if you 'get away with it' once or twice.

But what is manipulation. When i'm with a date, I read her body language, check for repeated words tied to emotional states, encourage her to focus the conversation towards more positive experiences. Because I know that if the conversations we have are positive, and she recalls good experiences while I am with her, then her memories of me will generally also be good (unless i make a huge mistake somewhere along the line). Is that manipulation?

Any influence you have over a person or conversation (good or bad) could be termed manipulation. If, however, you're talking about forcing them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do, and that they would regret later, then thats a very different type of manipulation. Secondly, manipulation on any level is not about lying. It defeats the purpose to lie during any stage of the manipulation/seduction because anything based on falsehood has a very real chance of crumbling. The truth is far more powerful... and easier to use.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Allow me to explain in a graphic nerve ending way. . When a man has intercourse, the nerve endings in the head of his penis are clenched and stimulated by the vaginal muscles making him nearly 100 guaranteed to orgasm.

Amazing... simply amazing. I must have a defective penis since I hardly ever orgasm. Actually, my counseller said that I fear losing complete control so I clamp down on the orgasm before it happens (which throws in the psychological aspect), and I'm far more likely to have an orgasm with someone I have strong feelings for (which throws in the emotional aspect). I fear, you've missed a rather strong point. Depending on the size, and shape of the penis, for many men it can be difficult to get enough sensation near the head to orgasm. (A penis is not factory mass produced so most of us get our orgasms in different ways)

You'll find if you do some google searches that there are quite a few men out there who can't organism for both physical and emotional reasons with their partners. Its not as clear cut as you would like to make out. [As for the female side, i reckon thats already been argued better than I could have]

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I would suggest that it's another angle along the lines of "men don't get women at all" just hitting more below the belt. Actually that idea is a common meme out there among men and women and has been for many years. "Oh you can never understand a woman, you know. We're/They're unknowable"(women come out with similar about men, but not to the same degree). Clearly utter nonsense. Examples of both genders use it as an excuse in my view. Easier to say ahh you're unknowable than actually make the effort to try. They're not space aliens. We're people, and as people are as easy to understand or not as individuals. There are men I can't fathom too well and their are women I can't fathom too well, but I'd have a fair idea with most people.

The funny thing I find about this is that I probably know more about getting a girl to orgasm using my fingers or tongue/nose than they do themselves. Flip that around to those women who know how to get a guy (or me) to orgasm with hands and tongue/mouth and I've met very few indeed. The sheer amount of women I know who don't masturbate is shocking, and can't do much beyond getting themselves wet.

So its interesting to me that the point is made that men don't know the vagina very well. I'd say most of us do.. God knows we spend enough time thinking about it. :rolleyes:

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

The funny thing I find about this is that I probably know more about getting a girl to orgasm using my fingers or tongue/nose than they do themselves. Flip that around to those women who know how to get a guy (or me) to orgasm with hands and tongue/mouth and I've met very few indeed. The sheer amount of women I know who don't masturbate is shocking, and can't do much beyond getting themselves wet.

So its interesting to me that the point is made that men don't know the vagina very well. I'd say most of us do.. God knows we spend enough time thinking about it. :rolleyes:

Fingers are a bit more manoeuvrable alright! I think the majority of women definitely do masturbate, many wont tell you though, or don't want to talk about it openly so you have to build up an element of trust to bridge the subject.

gargleblaster

gargleblaster wrote: »

One would think that being successful at pleasing her in bed would be related to attraction for second meetings for sex, yes. However, that leaves out the fact that many women never have orgasms with a partner at all, so they'd be less inclined to hold that against any man, no matter how attractive he is. But no, I don't think his attractiveness has anything to do with the possibility of acheieving orgasm. It's usually physiological or psychological on her part, or a combination of the two.

I wanted to get back to this to make a rather simple statement. PUA is not about actual sex. Its about the dating process. Sure, for many guys they date so they can have sex, but PUA is there to teach men to get past the dating obstacles they've previously had.

I think there is a trend by those who are against PUA to throw out the sex element to make the whole PUA thing worse. BUT being good at PUA does not mean you will be good at sex. But the for decades women have been telling us that the sex is not so important to them, so PUA provides the tools for men to see those girls even if their first sex is pretty bad.

But Ultimately PUA is solely about dating, and the interactions at the beginning, during or after the dating process.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Fingers are a bit more manoeuvrable alright! I think the majority of women definitely do masturbate, many wont tell you though, or don't want to talk about it openly so you have to build up an element of trust to bridge the subject.

Depends on where you are and who you're with. If you give a girl an orgasm it could easily be her first time including her time masturbating.

A rather pleasant factor of doing PUA is that the majority of my friends are female. And no, i haven't dated or slept with many of them. They just like having a male friend that seeks to understand them, and is prepared to just listen. I'm also still friends with all my ex-girlfriends with the exception of one. I fully lay that at the feet of PUA since most of my male friends are rarely still friends with their ex's. So, that's where I get some of my info..

gargleblaster

So Scanlas says we can't trust women's own responses.

Then Wibbs cites one outlier study (of women's responses) to say that he'd wager it's more realistic than the vast majority of other studies.

What exactly is the point in ignoring the results of the vast majority of these studies? I mean for crying out loud, it's so rare that it has been called a myth by many - still is, actually.

gargleblaster

Deleted User wrote: »

I wanted to get back to this to make a rather simple statement. PUA is not about actual sex. Its about the dating process. Sure, for many guys they date so they can have sex, but PUA is there to teach men to get past the dating obstacles they've previously had.

I think there is a trend by those who are against PUA to throw out the sex element to make the whole PUA thing worse. BUT being good at PUA does not mean you will be good at sex. But the for decades women have been telling us that the sex is not so important to them, so PUA provides the tools for men to see those girls even if their first sex is pretty bad.

But Ultimately PUA is solely about dating, and the interactions at the beginning, during or after the dating process.

I'm not saying PUA should be about sex, just that I expected a correlation of interest in picking up women with interest in what women like sexually.

Which women have been saying for decades that sex is not so important to them? This is news to me. Saying that it's not paramount is not the same thing as saying you don't care about having a good time in bed.

edit: That smiley was accidental. Oops.

K-9

gargleblaster wrote: »

So Scanlas says we can't trust women's own responses.

Then Wibbs cites one outlier study (of women's responses) to say that he'd wager it's more realistic than the vast majority of other studies.

What exactly is the point in ignoring the results of the vast majority of these studies? I mean for crying out loud, it's so rare that it has been called a myth by many - still is, actually.

You said it was 20% in a previous post.

Many do say it's a myth, many say it isn't and that far more than that can orgasm. It hasn't really been proven conclusively so I don't think it's fair to scoff at results or opinions on it.

gargleblaster

Deleted User wrote: »

The funny thing I find about this is that I probably know more about getting a girl to orgasm using my fingers or tongue/nose than they do themselves. Flip that around to those women who know how to get a guy (or me) to orgasm with hands and tongue/mouth and I've met very few indeed. The sheer amount of women I know who don't masturbate is shocking, and can't do much beyond getting themselves wet.

As has been said, discussing masturbation habits with a man they're talking with face-to-face is something many women might not be comfortable doing. And there are societal pressures as well. If women are raised to think sex is dirty or women who are sexual are all sinful hussies and sluts who no man will want, then some of those women will internalize that indoctrination, and won't feel so free to explore their bodies no matter how tempting it is.

So its interesting to me that the point is made that men don't know the vagina very well.

I think men know the body part well enough. Just not about how it works as far as having orgasms goes.

gargleblaster

K-9 wrote: »

You said it was 20% in a previous post.

Actually it was not me who said it, nor has it been cited.

Many do say it's a myth, many say it isn't and that far more than that can orgasm. It hasn't really been proven conclusively so I don't think it's fair to scoff at results or opinions on it.

Who exactly says that far more than that can orgasm from vaginal penetration? Please let me know. Because other than a few men on this thread, I'm missing those claims.

It hasn't been proven conclusively. Things like this rarely are.

However, as I have said, if we take the results of the vast majorities of these studies, combined with the fact that it is so rare that it is called a myth, still, by a significant number of people - then we can be reasonably assured that it is accurate to say that the number of women who have orgasms from vaginal penetration only are a distinct minority.

I will scoff at any attempt to extrapolate anecdotal experience, or citations of outlier studies.

K-9

gargleblaster wrote: »

I think that's what she's referring to. Only 20% of women have one.

gargleblaster wrote: »

Actually it was not me who said it, nor has it been cited.

Thought you were saying it there.

gargleblaster wrote:

Who exactly says that far more than that can orgasm from vaginal penetration? Please let me know. Because other than a few men on this thread, I'm missing those claims.

I said many think it isn't a myth and that many think far more than that (being none) happen. Sorry.

gargleblaster wrote:

It hasn't been proven conclusively. Things like this rarely are.

Exactly.

However, as I have said, if we take the results of the vast majorities of these studies, combined with the fact that it is so rare that it is called a myth, still, by a significant number of people - then we can be reasonably assured that it is accurate to say that the number of women who have orgasms from vaginal penetration only are a distinct minority.

Fair enough, it wouldn't be a reasonable assumption that it's a myth then.

I will scoff at any attempt to extrapolate anecdotal experience, or citations of outlier studies.

No doubt you will.

Wibbs

gargleblaster wrote: »

Then Wibbs cites one outlier study (of women's responses) to say that he'd wager it's more realistic than the vast majority of other studies.

What exactly is the point in ignoring the results of the vast majority of these studies? I mean for crying out loud, it's so rare that it has been called a myth by many - still is, actually.

Its not "so rare". Why are you perpetuating this idea? OK lets say you and midlandmissus' figure is actually correct? That still leaves nigh on a third of women happily having the experience in male female coitus. How is that by any stretch of the imagination "so rare? Seriously. If you like I can cite any number of studies(not opinion pieces based on one or two studies and repeated ad infinitum) that show coital orgasm is not rare, that up to half of all women report them.

IMHO this notion that it's so rare is just as untrue as men reckoning only dysfunctional women can't have one and all it takes is the "right man*". Like I said even at the most pessimistic figures trotted out it means between 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 women walking down the street have them and that's not rare. Rare would be 1 in 20, or 1 in a 100. It's like the other oft quoted idea that women speak more and use more words than men every day. You hear that one trotted out all the time. It's incorrect. It comes from one passage in a self help book from 20 years ago. With every self help book repeating it, until it became "received wisdom". It has little basis in fact. Research shows little gender difference, the difference comes with social and educational levels in the individual. This coital orgasm thing is on better ground, but only just.



*though that has more currency. It seems if you're stuck with a one pump chump the forget about it(naturally). It also helps if he's good looking which eats into some of the PUA notions that it's little enough to do with looks. The better looking the man outside of social factors, the more coital orgasms a woman will have. The more sexual partners a woman has the more likely she is to get there through coitus and the more bits on the side she has ditto. The more emotionally together the woman is the more she has. There ya go carte blanche to nuts with good looking fit men and lots of them. Though there could just be a chicken egg thing goin on there.

Wibbs

gargleblaster wrote: »

I will scoff at any attempt to extrapolate anecdotal experience, or citations of outlier studies.

Outlier to your entrenched belief. The "it must be true, cos I've read it and it's an accepted fact and my personal experience copperfastens that".

Another one? http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/260.full A twin study looking into the heritability of difficulties in achieving orgasms of all types across the board. Just over 4000 women twins of all ages were surveyed. To save you a wade through "One in three women (32%) reported never or infrequently achieving orgasm during intercourse". That means 2 outa 3 do and that of the one out of three that don't some do but infrequently. Now unless your references mean twins are built differently, how is that rare? How many more outlier studies would you like? I can cite more.

I am not suggesting that every woman can or does. I am not suggesting the inability is rare, however I am questioning this current meme/mantra of the "vast majority" can't and don't.

gargleblaster

K-9 wrote: »

Thought you were saying it there.

I was attempting to clarify what was being referred to, not offering my stamp of approval on the number as the final and concrete and true number which overrules all other claims.

Fair enough, it wouldn't be a reasonable assumption that it's a myth then.

Agreed.

Wibbs wrote: »

Its not "so rare". Why are you perpetuating this idea? OK lets say you and midlandmissus' figure is actually correct? That still leaves nigh on a third of women happily having the experience in male female coitus. How is that by any stretch of the imagination "so rare?

Seriously. If you like I can cite any number of studies(not opinion pieces based on one or two studies and repeated ad infinitum) that show coital orgasm is not rare, that up to half of all women report them.

We might be getting our wires crossed, Wibbs. There are two things being discussed so I might not be using the appropriate clarity.

Let's be generous and say 30% of women are capable of having vaginal orgasms. I agree that that's not rare. That's a minority, but not so tiny.

But out of those women, how many of them have them as a matter of routine during penetrative sex? How many have them often, even? Or sometimes? Or rarely? Or just once? Even those women who have only experienced it once are counted in the 'able to have vaginal orgasms' group - but using them as fodder in a 'sure all women get off from being penetrated' claim is specious. IMO, based on the results of the majority of these studies (about even being able to have one) combined with actually realizing that - vaginal orgasms are rare.

IMHO this notion that it's so rare is just as untrue as men reckoning only dysfunctional women can't have one and all it takes is the "right man*". Like I said even at the most pessimistic figures trotted out it means between 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 women walking down the street have them and that's not rare. Rare would be 1 in 20, or 1 in a 100. It's like the other oft quoted idea that women speak more and use more words than men every day. You hear that one trotted out all the time. It's incorrect. It comes from one passage in a self help book from 20 years ago. With every self help book repeating it, until it became "received wisdom". It has little basis in fact. Research shows little gender difference, the difference comes with social and educational levels in the individual. This coital orgasm thing is on better ground, but only just.



*though that has more currency. It seems if you're stuck with a one pump chump the forget about it(naturally). It also helps if he's good looking which eats into some of the PUA notions that it's little enough to do with looks. The better looking the man outside of social factors, the more coital orgasms a woman will have. The more sexual partners a woman has the more likely she is to get there through coitus and the more bits on the side she has ditto. The more emotionally together the woman is the more she has. There ya go carte blanche to nuts with good looking fit men and lots of them. Though there could just be a chicken egg thing goin on there.

Point very much taken re: skill. Those women for whom it is physiologically possible will have a much better chance of actually realizing that potential with a partner who can last, and who is attentive to her needs.

I haven't seen any studies about a man's attractiveness affecting how orgasmic a woman is - vaginally or otherwise, but I have seen the one citing a correllation with how wealthy he is. Didn't bother reading it, I assumed it was as flawed as the one which correlated vaginal orgasms to penis size. Until a study (of this nature) is replicated a few times I don't really take them too seriously. The one about the shape a woman's upper lip was slightly more interesting though - I almost checked that out. Ditto the one about walking style.


edit: Just read your last post, and I would definitely be interested in more outliers. If there's a dozen or so reliable studies, then I would reconsider the most can't/few can "mantra" (it's really not a mantra, it's actually the consensus among scientists).

Wibbs

gargleblaster wrote: »

We might be getting our wires crossed, Wibbs. There are two things being discussed so I might not be using the appropriate clarity.

Ahh right gotcha

Let's be generous and say 30% of women are capable of having vaginal orgasms. I agree that that's not rare. That's a minority, but not so tiny.

Ok, but even there I have issues over the figure considering other studies.

But out of those women, how many of them have them as a matter of routine during penetrative sex? How many have them often, even? Or sometimes? Or rarely? Or just once? Even those women who have only experienced it once are counted in the 'able to have vaginal orgasms' group - but using them as fodder in a 'sure all women get off from being penetrated' claim is specious.

The linked twin study allows for this. It states that of the one in three that can't some can't infrequently. Of course yep it's going to be a sliding scale, but that doesn't backup the oft quoted 20% or some even going so far as 10% or lower figures. Here's the breakdown figures wise. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/260/T1.expansion.html In case you're on a mobile

during intercourse (n=2749)a
unsure/never 16
less than 25% 16
25–49% 8
about 50% 13
51–75% 11
more than 75% 23
always 14

So 60% of women overall have them and can expect to have them on average half the time. A full third can and do have them nearly every time That's not including the 24% who can still have them, but not so often. The unsure/never have them is 16%. A complete reversal of the mantra. Even if we say it's somewhere in the middle it's still not even approaching a rarity for women.

IMO, based on the results of the majority of these studies (about even being able to have one) combined with actually realizing that - vaginal orgasms are rare.

Nope, like I said and quoted above not rare, unless we're in the biz of redefining rare.

Point very much taken re: skill. Those women for whom it is physiologically possible will have a much better chance of actually realizing that potential with a partner who can last, and who is attentive to her needs.

Yep

I haven't seen any studies about a man's attractiveness affecting how orgasmic a woman is - vaginally or otherwise, but I have seen the one citing a correllation with how wealthy he is

Symmetrical men have more partners and cause more sexual pleasure in their partners. Again contrary to much of the PUA stuff that claims looks have little to do with it(in an effort to get more customers on board methinks), looks do. As does wealth, more importantly social power/respect. On that score the PUA stuff is on firmer ground, but you can't fake that for long. Maybe on a one nighter in a dark loud club off ones mammaries on alcoholic beverages, but beyond that not so much.

Didn't bother reading it, I assumed it was as flawed as the one which correlated vaginal orgasms to penis size.

The latter would seem logical, certainly at the extremes. A tiny one aint gonna hit the spot(and an overly large one will be uncomfortable). I suspect there's a goldilocks size which works best. I'd further suspect it's around the average size for men anyway. Given that women would likely select for this trait in our evolution. Something did as among the great apes men have by a good measure the largest ones. Gorillas for all their bulk have to make do with 2 inches.

Ditto the one about walking style.

I would say the walking style one is an easy enough one to figure out why. Women who are healthy, both emotionally and physically and hormonally are going to exhibit a different walking style to those women who aren't. IE a woman with toned pelvic floor muscles and core body muscles will move differently. I'd put good money that if they factored in the "ideal" hip waist ratio they'd see a similar result. Physical and emotional health with a side order of genetics seems to affect this a lot. I'd add in age. The other oft quoted one is women hit their sexual peak in their 30's. This seems odd to do so, just as(or after) their peak of fertility. It's largely based on sexual satisfaction. For all sorts of reasons. More comfortable in their own skins for a start. Nothing kills the sexual response more than insecurity. Plus they're more likely, "cougars" aside to be dealing with men their own age who may actually know what the hell they're doing. Even with the cougars they're confident enough to instruct the guy on what to do as opposed to too many younger women lying back and thinking of Ireland when they don't even know who's on the team.

edit: Just read your last post, and I would definitely be interested in more outliers. If there's a dozen or so reliable studies, then I would reconsider the most can't/few can "mantra"

I'll try and dig more up G. Unfortunately many are behind pay per view science/university/research sites.

(it's really not a mantra, it's actually the consensus among scientists)

It's more the consensus out there. Not unlike the women talk more consensus. It also depends on the scientists you ask. Mantras are quite common among scientists too. As is received wisdom. As is sometimes believing previous research as being the start point. Kinsey came out with all sorts of unsubstantiated guff, or guff with very narrow subjects and responders and he's still quoted by quite a few scientists and in the media. It's the same in many fields. Hell 3 years ago the very top men and women in science boldly stated as fact/considered opinion/mantra that no other archaic humans mated with moderns. Three years on after at least two such examples came to light many of the same top people in their field were doing backpedals that would shame Lance Armstrong. I always worry about "givens" of any kind. Indeed it's one reason I'm very dubious of much of the PUA output as far as "fact" and "science has shown" parts go.

Reward Hunter

WARNING: ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS HYPOTHESIS, NOTHING MORE


Womenz that don't or "can't" experience vaginal orgasm, or never have, are probably the ones that don't or can't attract men that are capable of giving them.

Only 20% of women have ever experienced vaginal orgasm?

What that to me says, is 80% of men are slackers.

You women need to tighten up your game.

Necessity is the mother of invention.
If a guy can only get a girl based on the degree of sexual pleasure he can provide, then if he's a slacker and not capable of providing that much, for sure it's motivation for him to get his arse in gear.

I do believe there's an equal or almost greater desire, on the part of women, to experience that thorough sexual fulfillment.

Women claim men are "hungry sex addicts" and have "filthy minds" etc.
I say, women are more intense in this regard.

But they're not in a position to impose their sexual will.
They basically gotta do the best they can to attract a man who can fulfill their desires.

But seems as most won't stoop to that level, they settle for using their sexual allure as a means to assert a sense of dominance over men, and as a result, become crazy with the hunger for power and attention and self assertion.

I'm sure most men would love to know how to please a woman more thoroughly, but they just lack the knowledge.

Help us help you.

Reward Hunter

Wibbs wrote: »

Symmetrical men have more partners and cause more sexual pleasure in their partners. Again contrary to much of the PUA stuff that claims looks have little to do with it(in an effort to get more customers on board methinks), looks do. As does wealth, more importantly social power/respect. On that score the PUA stuff is on firmer ground, but you can't fake that for long.

I often think good looks are a perception of anothers degree of confidence.

We are what we do.

Do good solid constructive things that our character lends itself too => become strong and confident, and thus, people perceive us as attractive and good looking.

Of course it's not the only factor (being in shape, dressing good, all the cliches), but for sure a big one IMO.

I guess the "self improvement" side of PUA covers that already though.

gargleblaster

Wibbs wrote: »

The linked twin study allows for this. It states that of the one in three that can't some can't infrequently. Of course yep it's going to be a sliding scale, but that doesn't backup the oft quoted 20% or some even going so far as 10% or lower figures. Here's the breakdown figures wise. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/260/T1.expansion.html In case you're on a mobile

during intercourse (n=2749)a
unsure/never 16
less than 25% 16
25–49% 8
about 50% 13
51–75% 11
more than 75% 23
always 14

So 60% of women overall have them and can expect to have them on average half the time. A full third can and do have them nearly every time That's not including the 24% who can still have them, but not so often. The unsure/never have them is 16%. A complete reversal of the mantra. Even if we say it's somewhere in the middle it's still not even approaching a rarity for women.

No, this only applies to 60% of the women in that one study. Not women in general. And that study was sent to thousands of women, and got thousands of responses, but how many were used in the study?

And this is all extrapolation to the general population, based on what appears to be, as of now, only two outlier studies.

Symmetrical men have more partners and cause more sexual pleasure in their partners. Again contrary to much of the PUA stuff that claims looks have little to do with it(in an effort to get more customers on board methinks), looks do.

Yeah, looks do matter. It might not matter as much in long term relationships, but as far as just picking people up and having numerous partners, it obviously very much does.

As does wealth, more importantly social power/respect. On that score the PUA stuff is on firmer ground, but you can't fake that for long. Maybe on a one nighter in a dark loud club off ones mammaries on alcoholic beverages, but beyond that not so much. The latter would seem logical, certainly at the extremes.

Most definitely. IMO this explains the 'bad boy' phenomenon much more effectively than any ideas about taming or changing someone. The bad boy types project an image of dominance. That's a primitive signal for women.

A tiny one aint gonna hit the spot(and an overly large one will be uncomfortable). I suspect there's a goldilocks size which works best. I'd further suspect it's around the average size for men anyway.

I'm just gonna bite my tongue on this one as it's very hard not to offer personal opinion.

On a more serious note, it really is complicated. There are so many factors involved.

Given that women would likely select for this trait in our evolution. Something did as among the great apes men have by a good measure the largest ones. Gorillas for all their bulk have to make do with 2 inches. I would say the walking style one is an easy enough one to figure out why. Women who are healthy, both emotionally and physically and hormonally are going to exhibit a different walking style to those women who aren't. IE a woman with toned pelvic floor muscles and core body muscles will move differently. I'd put good money that if they factored in the "ideal" hip waist ratio they'd see a similar result. Physical and emotional health with a side order of genetics seems to affect this a lot. I'd add in age. The other oft quoted one is women hit their sexual peak in their 30's. This seems odd to do so, just as(or after) their peak of fertility. It's largely based on sexual satisfaction. For all sorts of reasons. More comfortable in their own skins for a start. Nothing kills the sexual response more than insecurity. Plus they're more likely, "cougars" aside to be dealing with men their own age who may actually know what the hell they're doing. Even with the cougars they're confident enough to instruct the guy on what to do as opposed to too many younger women lying back and thinking of Ireland when they don't even know who's on the team.

:pac: I do love this subject!

Just to touch on one point above, the sexual peak of women hitting just as they're nearing the end of fertility seems to make perfect sense to me. It's the last-chance phenomenon. That's when women are really running out of time to reproduce, so it makes sense for biology to make one final push to drive women to do so before it's too late. As for my personal experience, it's entirely physiological - and quite unnerving.

I'll try and dig more up G. Unfortunately many are behind pay per view science/university/research sites. It's more the consensus out there. Not unlike the women talk more consensus. It also depends on the scientists you ask. Mantras are quite common among scientists too. As is received wisdom. As is sometimes believing previous research as being the start point. Kinsey came out with all sorts of unsubstantiated guff, or guff with very narrow subjects and responders and he's still quoted by quite a few scientists and in the media. It's the same in many fields. Hell 3 years ago the very top men and women in science boldly stated as fact/considered opinion/mantra that no other archaic humans mated with moderns. Three years on after at least two such examples came to light many of the same top people in their field were doing backpedals that would shame Lance Armstrong. I always worry about "givens" of any kind. Indeed it's one reason I'm very dubious of much of the PUA output as far as "fact" and "science has shown" parts go.

Good point re: mantra/scientific consensus - I would say a mantra has more of a basis in 'common sense' or 'conventional wisdom' (often so very incorrect), whereas scientific consensus is based more on research. As more research is done, new theories are developed as more information comes out of each successive study, so that consensus is of course subject to change as new information is discovered. However I haven't seen that that has happened in this area yet. There's such a dearth on hard scientific research on this subject, so the majority of what we have to go on is survey type information, flawed as it may be.

Reward Hunter

Women who aren't having mind blowing orgasms regularly probably take comfort in the notion that that is typical for women in general.

lol - newsflash - you couldn't BE more wrong.

Wibbs

gargleblaster wrote: »

No, this only applies to 60% of the women in that one study. Not women in general. And that study was sent to thousands of women, and got thousands of responses, but how many were used in the study?

6000 women on the twin register for just such surveys(and used and reported as an important an reliable cohort in other areas), 4000 responded and the results are what they reported.

And this is all extrapolation to the general population, based on what appears to be, as of now, only two outlier studies.

Two "outlier" studies that come up with similar figures. 5000 women surveyed in two different studies looking for different results.

OK then G can you cite me a recent non outlier study with those numbers that corroborates this only 10% or 30% can figure? The only one that gets trotted out and referred to as a yes mantra, is Shere Hite's 70's study that reports a figure of 30% that can and do. Yet her survey ambitious though it was suffers or can be argued to suffer from bias all over the place. Her respondents weren't random for a start. The other issue around subjects like this is the level of response isn't typically high(the twins one was unusual enough, though maybe because of that particular population they were more use to such studies). So that's a bias right there. EG Of the respondents she asked about marriage satisfaction and affairs. The results? Nearly 98% said they were dissatisfied in their marriages and 75% admitted to affairs. Bit high one would have thought? Other properly controlled surveys with a random sampling gave a figure of 7% and 7% respectively. Now if you have a cohort of women who almost to a woman report dissatisfaction with their marriages and 2 thirds are having affairs and the same women tell you that only a third of them have coital intercourse, would you not think "ah here now Ted, maybe we're asking the wrong people". How much more likely is a woman(or man) going to say sex is crap if their relationship is crap? Add in Shere Hite's political leanings you would wonder why she reckon thee results were on the ball. She (rightly) criticised Masters and Johnson and Kinsey for extrapolating results from very narrow samples(men in prison, prostitutes among others), yet she failed to see the plank in her own eye?

Like I said if you can cite me a recent random sample survey like the ones I have, not references without... well references or harking back to Ms Hite. Sure you can find the 70/20% 80/20% figures all over the place, but strangely quiet on references or links to actual studies. So I would suggest my cited studies might carry more weight (IMHO)

Most definitely. IMO this explains the 'bad boy' phenomenon much more effectively than any ideas about taming or changing someone. The bad boy types project an image of dominance. That's a primitive signal for women.

Oh yea but I'd still say it's also a primitive signal for women to amend such dominance for the good of the group. Though that;s just one of my mad theories of modern human evolution, that we domesticated ourselves as a species, just as we find it easy to domesticate other species as a side effect. I would say women play a large part in this.

I'm just gonna bite my tongue on this one as it's very hard not to offer personal opinion.

I say nada <_< >_>

On a more serious note, it really is complicated. There are so many factors involved.

Agreed and another reason I find the tendency for one size fits all in PUA(and even worse in books like The Rules for women) and extrapolations from these generalisations that are more miss than hit IMHO.

:pac: I do love this subject!

Ditto.

Just to touch on one point above, the sexual peak of women hitting just as they're nearing the end of fertility seems to make perfect sense to me. It's the last-chance phenomenon. That's when women are really running out of time to reproduce, so it makes sense for biology to make one final push to drive women to do so before it's too late. As for my personal experience, it's entirely physiological - and quite unnerving.

Oh yea true enough. It can't hurt that the individual is more at ease with herself than at 18, what with the female orgasm being more psychologically based than the male in general.

Good point re: mantra/scientific consensus - I would say a mantra has more of a basis in 'common sense' or 'conventional wisdom' (often so very incorrect), whereas scientific consensus is based more on research.

I think we'd be surprised how much of it isn't, or based on one off research repeated enough times, so that it becomes a given. There a fair few examples of that.

There's such a dearth on hard scientific research on this subject, so the majority of what we have to go on is survey type information, flawed as it may be.

True and see above on how surveys can appear OK, yet are very questionable.

gargleblaster

gargleblaster wrote: »

I'm not saying PUA should be about sex, just that I expected a correlation of interest in picking up women with interest in what women like sexually.

One generally follows the other. If I put the money, time and dedication into learning to date women successfully, it stands to reason that I will want to give her a pleasurable time during sex. The thing you seem to misunderstand about PUA is that its as much about giving a woman a good time as making men more successful. If a woman feels pleasure during the dating process (i.e. a guy that listens, understands and is capable of being confident in her presence), then it stands to reason that the date/approach will be more sucessful. And then the guy worries about whether they're good in bed or not.

Which women have been saying for decades that sex is not so important to them? This is news to me. Saying that it's not paramount is not the same thing as saying you don't care about having a good time in bed.

edit: That smiley was accidental. Oops.

Well, there's the stereotype that its the men that are sex crazy and the women have to suffer mens attentions... you don't think thats a statement in itself? But thats neither here nor there. Personally I believe that women do value sex... it just depends on the woman in question.

gargleblaster wrote: »

As has been said, discussing masturbation habits with a man they're talking with face-to-face is something many women might not be comfortable doing. And there are societal pressures as well. If women are raised to think sex is dirty or women who are sexual are all sinful hussies and sluts who no man will want, then some of those women will internalize that indoctrination, and won't feel so free to explore their bodies no matter how tempting it is.

I'm well aware of the embarrassment issue, although I find that women are more comfortable talking about anything sexual with a man than with another woman.

The reasons don't really matter... what matters is how common it is, considering how this discussion developed.

I think men know the body part well enough. Just not about how it works as far as having orgasms goes.

You need to broaden your circle of male "contacts". Any guy that has had more than a few relationships generally has to learn. They might not know how it works but they learn how to give them. Its all very well being a smooth talker or handsome, but if you can't keep your girl satisfied, she'll leave or seek attention elsewhere. Its our responsibility to be able to give our partners an orgasm... (most of the time - sometimes nothing works.)

Reward Hunter

Reward Hunter wrote: »

I often think good looks are a perception of anothers degree of confidence.

We are what we do.

Do good solid constructive things that our character lends itself too => become strong and confident, and thus, people perceive us as attractive and good looking.

Of course it's not the only factor (being in shape, dressing good, all the cliches), but for sure a big one IMO.

I guess the "self improvement" side of PUA covers that already though.

Trust me... confidence only goes so far... thats why you might need all the other useful tools (like understanding women, core values, pacing, tonal control, etc) and even then, they too only go so far.

There is nothing quite as successful as a good looking person, who dresses well, and has a medium amount of confidence (some vulnerability is sexy).

K-9

Reward Hunter wrote: »

WARNING: ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS HYPOTHESIS, NOTHING MORE


Womenz that don't or "can't" experience vaginal orgasm, or never have, are probably the ones that don't or can't attract men that are capable of giving them.

Only 20% of women have ever experienced vaginal orgasm?

What that to me says, is 80% of men are slackers.

You women need to tighten up your game.

Necessity is the mother of invention.
If a guy can only get a girl based on the degree of sexual pleasure he can provide, then if he's a slacker and not capable of providing that much, for sure it's motivation for him to get his arse in gear.

I do believe there's an equal or almost greater desire, on the part of women, to experience that thorough sexual fulfillment.

Women claim men are "hungry sex addicts" and have "filthy minds" etc.
I say, women are more intense in this regard.

But they're not in a position to impose their sexual will.
They basically gotta do the best they can to attract a man who can fulfill their desires.

But seems as most won't stoop to that level, they settle for using their sexual allure as a means to assert a sense of dominance over men, and as a result, become crazy with the hunger for power and attention and self assertion.

I'm sure most men would love to know how to please a woman more thoroughly, but they just lack the knowledge.

Help us help you.

Okay, you seem to be ignored here so I'll indulge you.

I'd believe women have a far greater imagination when it comes to sex definitely, not in a male way of thinking, (sorry for the generalisations Wibbs, I agree with what Wibbs said earlier) I think they do it view it slightly differently. I would say that when they are on their own individually they think differently, not in a group. I think in a group they try and ape men too much.

Sexual pleasure will only get a guy so far. It's important and if she can't get it from somebody else you will be high value. It wont last long as there has to be more about you. If it does last based on sexual value alone well.......................................

There has to be more to it, why Wibbs mentions money/status etc. You have to have something else about you, money yes, but even that can go. Social value tends to be a permanent thing, able to talk, socially intelligent, in other words the charmer! Hell, it's why Irish men are stereotyped as charmers, we've the gift of the gab!

Sexual value alone will get you far, if she's sticking to you just because of sex you should be walking away. PUA should tell you that isn't a good enough to stay with a girl!

PS. PUA is a very male, logical way of thinking. It only gets you so far. Social Intelligence is extremely under estimated.

Reward Hunter

Deleted User wrote: »

Trust me... confidence only goes so far... thats why you might need all the other useful tools (like understanding women, core values, pacing, tonal control, etc) and even then, they too only go so far.

There is nothing quite as successful as a good looking person, who dresses well, and has a medium amount of confidence (some vulnerability is sexy).

Well, I agree with you.

Really, good looks are where it's at.

But, while of course natural symmetry plays a part, I truly believe that we perceive someone who is more confident, as actually being better looking.

Of course, other perceptions play into it - sexuality, being sexy, as in, a cool indifference, in a sense; not to mention, as you said, dressing and being in shape etc etc.

I guess everyone (successful with women) has their own X-factor as well.
Just their own separate little look, going on.

I'm just looking at this, sort of; how can I explain...

Put it this way.
I've seen, I guess we've all seen, some girl, and she's not bad.
But then, one day you turn around and she's developed into this little temptress.

I believe it's a combination of them things.
She's begun to explore her own sexuality and the leverage she can exploit, the power and irresistability of sex, she's got in shape and got that x-factor look thing going on.

I know that sounds a bit much, bit it's just the small things that shows she has good taste and self awareness, that make a big difference.

I don't see it as being any different for men, except, traditionally speaking at least, it's something they just don't put the time or effort or thought into - and we're probably back to the whole "traditionally speaking men were the breadwinners - feminist revolution, times-a-changing etc", argument.

That's my point of view there anyway.

Edit: Apologies. The point I was trying to make there was, it's the combination of them various factors and perceptions, I believe, that contribute to others overall perception of us as being "good looking".

leggo

On good looks:
I have a phrase: "I'm not good looking, but I know how to look good."

See, I used to be a fat kid in school, with freckles and a bit of acne to boot, with no idea about fashion or using hair gel effectively or any of that stuff. Even up until around 18-19, when I was doing a LOT better with women than beforehand, I remember my "Oh I'm gonna show you..." moment when a guy in a locker room called me "Probably the ugliest bloke I've ever seen."

Then, recently enough (i.e. within the past couple years), I had to completely re-work my game because I was getting different results to before. When I would've struggled before, it would've been because I couldn't keep their attention until I started making them laugh etc. Now it was the complete opposite. They'd GIVE me attention and I'd have no idea how to deal with it. I'd go back into making them laugh, or even tossing routines like The Cube around, and sometimes lose their interest. From the standpoint of being the guy who couldn't buy a hairy eye, that was a shock. Even while teaching this stuff, I found it confusing that I now had to go back to the drawing board.

What I realised is that now I had a much better sense of fashion, knew how to focus my appearance around my positives and had a dominating sense of confidence that would attract instant attention and take over most rooms (the latter point is probably the most important). I'm not trying to sound arrogant here...this was a problem! I was used to being the underdog and hearing girls say "I'm not usually attracted to lads like you..." I had based everything I'd learned about game and taught myself around that principle and it had worked fine...until this started messing me up! I also found it difficult when approaching because, a lot of the time, the girl would already be into me. So when I'd start cracking jokes or whatever it'd NOW look like I was trying to show off. Crazy, isn't it?!

What I THEN had to figure out was that looks and confidence would only give you what I call 'buying power' into a group of girls. I'd immediately have them try 'take me down a peg' if I even asked for the light of a smoke. That's not congruent behaviour on their part. Something was up...They were testing to see if I was all I cracked up to be. So I figured out if I could just laugh it off and roll through it, I had already won, and their attitude would soon shift dramatically (this is a very Irish attitude, btw, I find the British, American and Eastern European women much more straightforward).

Looks allow you quicker access to women you may not have before. They mean you don't have to work to get their attention as much. But once you have their focus, it's all down to what you say and do.

The thing is that you can GET their attention without looks...it just takes more work initially. But once you have them sold on you as a person, they like you. Whereas the opposite is true with good looks: you have them sold from the off but THEN have to do your work. They're equally challenging, to be honest.

Then you get onto the question of "what is good looking?" Wibbs cites an example of symmetrical men statistically getting more partners. I don't really buy that as a stand-alone fact, their natural striking jaw-lines and whatever only play into their overall confidence and attractiveness, which is what is crucial here. What you're looking for is a response, a reaction, some instant value you have to the woman (value is the most important part in what makes us gravitate towards others, scientifically proven, feel free to Google it). That can be achieved through a number of means.

There is no conclusive proof over what IS attractive, so instead see it as being attractive IS the goal. However that works for people is up to their own individual selves. It's an X Factor type equation...and, speaking of X Factor, Jedward are famous musicians. So anyone who said that talent is necessary to last in the music business has been conclusively proven wrong. There's ALWAYS more than one way to skin a cat.

In summary, looks are important but only one component (and not an essential one) in the whole equation. Anyone who uses lack thereof as an excuse is only MAKING excuses for their lack of understanding of the matter.

Reward Hunter

Reward Hunter wrote: »

Well, I agree with you.

Really, good looks are where it's at.

Thats not what I'm saying. Its the combination of many factors. In my example, the person is good looking, yes... but they're also dressed well, and have a medium degree of confidence (not too much). The ability to dress well wins serious cookie points with most women depending on the circumstances/social setup. The medium amount of confidence projects a human side of vulnerability and removes the arrogance a lot of "confident" guys have.

But good looks in themselves are never enough. A personality still has to be there behind the eyes, unless they have other factors to keep a girl interested. i.e money, cars, ripped body etc.

But I can honestly say that I can beat most guys (with similar incomes) even if they are far better looking (which isn't that hard tbh). I'm not particularly good looking and coupled with my shakes it can give off a strange impression. Its a combination of my trust in my PUA skills (built over a decade of serious effort), and the simple aspect that I seek to understand women. Its amazing the number of guys that don't, which in turn helps me out. [I'm also very very very careful with the friendship category.]

Good looks are mostly down to luck. If you don't have them now, you're unlikely to have them in the future. What you can do is improve other parts of your life, and TBH improving your communication skills brings back far better (long and short lasting) results than anything else.

I've seen, I guess we've all seen, some girl, and she's not bad.
But then, one day you turn around and she's developed into this little temptress.

I believe it's a combination of them things.
She's begun to explore her own sexuality and the leverage she can exploit, the power and irresistability of sex, she's got in shape and got that x-factor look thing going on.

I know that sounds a bit much, bit it's just the small things that shows she has good taste and self awareness, that make a big difference.

It could be any reason. You're projecting your reasons on to her and changing your perception of the event. Why not just ask her what changed? I would. Although first, I'd check my own feelings to make sure it wasn't just me that changed.

Reward Hunter

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats not what I'm saying. Its the combination of many factors. In my example, the person is good looking, yes... but they're also dressed well, and have a medium degree of confidence (not too much). The medium amount of confidence projects a human side of vulnerability and removes the arrogance a lot of "confident" guys have.

That's actually pretty interesting - that point of view.

I understand entirely what your saying.
Oftentimes guys that are successful or whatever in one field, and develop good confidence as a result, we can often perceive as arrogant.
And I think you made the point, that "air" is often a bit of a turn off (for womenz).

Perhaps in my explanation I didn't differentiate sufficiently by what I meant between good looks, and attraction.

Perhaps what I should have clarified was, the more attractive someone is, the more we perceive them as being good looking (well, I do anyway - dunno about you guys) - referring to them aforementioned traits; confidence, sexuality, good taste etc.

In fact, sometimes when someone appears to have unattractive traits or qualities, it seems to detract from how "good looking" they appear to be, even if they have "perfect" symmetry and features etc IMO.
(some of them eastern European girls spring to mind immediately).

But referring to your point as regards vulnerability, I think perhaps it's quite accurate (but that's just me talking...)
In fact, perhaps what I meant when I referred earlier to the advantage of being "deceptive", is to perhaps emit a vibe that's construed by the person on the perceiving end, as effectively being whatever they want to believe you are.

This could be an instinctual thing on some sense.
Some girls like "cute" guys, some like "confident", brash, bold etc - but basically varying our behavior in accordance with their desired perception of us - which is generally instinctively and intuitively obvious, again IMO!! lol

Reward Hunter

Reward Hunter wrote: »

That's actually pretty interesting - that point of view.

I understand entirely what your saying.
Oftentimes guys that are successful or whatever in one field, and develop good confidence as a result, we can often perceive as arrogant.
And I think you made the point, that "air" is often a bit of a turn off (for womenz).

Actually.. fraid not. Natural confidence gained through the workplace, or through learning PUA isn't that obvious. Oh people pick up on it and respond to it favorably but it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. Alas so many men think that confidence is everything in dating and fake it, often rather to excess. Once confidence is gained naturally through training, or performance it becomes part of your personality, and therefore useful in dating.

Secondly, confidence in business, employment, study etc does not auromatically transfer to dating (or any other field). It took me years to gain my confidence in myself... even though i was already confident in my work abilities.

The real issue is that people place too much emphasis on confidence on its own. Its putting the cart before the horse. In dating confidence is gained by doing. By having approaches that fail, bettering your technique, and then succeeding. Unfortuently, so many guys don't learn the tools to help them gain that natural confidence and instead think they can swagger in using shoddy pick up lines and neg hits.

Perhaps in my explanation I didn't differentiate sufficiently by what I meant between good looks, and attraction.

Perhaps what I should have clarified was, the more attractive someone is, the more we perceive them as being good looking (well, I do anyway - dunno about you guys) - referring to them aforementioned traits; confidence, sexuality, good taste etc.

The problem is that attraction is very personal, changes depending on emotional states/circumstances, and also changes over time. Its relatively impossible to pin down what a person finds attractive in a person on a physical level, or otherwise. I, myself, have been asked many times what kind of women I like, and i find it an extremely difficult question to answer. All my ex-Gf's or dates have been quite different to each other... except that the majority were asian.. although thats not much use for dating purposes & defining attraction.

Good looking is easier to pin down since there are plenty of stereotypes which we can acknowledge as being broad scale attractive.

But referring to your point as regards vulnerability, I think perhaps it's quite accurate (but that's just me talking...)
In fact, perhaps what I meant when I referred earlier to the advantage of being "deceptive", is to perhaps emit a vibe that's construed by the person on the perceiving end, as effectively being whatever they want to believe you are.

Too much of anything is a turn off. Too much confidence cuts out other qualities from being seen, because everyone is focused on one thing. Everything in moderation. That way you're seen as been more balanced, and interesting. TBH I find being interesting nets me more success than my "sexy" friends.

This could be an instinctual thing on some sense.
Some girls like "cute" guys, some like "confident", brash, bold etc - but basically varying our behavior in accordance with their desired perception of us - which is generally instinctively and intuitively obvious, again IMO!! lol

I took PUA and added it to my personality. I recommend the same to everyone. If you seek to remake yourself, fine, do so, but do it completely. If you're just taking PUA and not believing in the material, people will pick up on it. We are constantly tested by other people from anything like threat level, whether we're strange, trustworthy etc. If you behave in a false manner, it will be picked up on. PUA is not about lying to either yourself or others. Its about adapting your lifestyle to something that works. For you.

And ultimately you will continue your learning in PUA not for the girls you meet. You will do it for yourself.

Scanlas The 2nd

PS. PUA is a very male, logical way of thinking. It only gets you so far. Social Intelligence is extremely under estimated.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's underestimated in PUA land anyway. I've read again and again in PUA websites/books/blogs etc about how important social intelligence is and also going into detail what it is.

On the confidence issue above: To me confidence is basically having a lack of anxiety or being relaxed in most scenarios allowing you to do what you want unstifled.. You can think you are one of the ugliest, stupidest unsuccessful losers on the planet and tell people that too and still have incredible confidence because you don't care about all that stuff, you're relaxed and at peace and not contrained by anxieties. Some people have confidence in some circumstances and not others. I think that is superficial confidence that is volatile to the circumstances. Other people are pretty much always confident and their confidence isn't so dependent on their circumstances. That's the one people should be aiming for IMO.

PUA is a very male, logical way of thinking. It only gets you so far. Social Intelligence is extremely under estimated.

TBH I don't think anything offers you everything you need. I mean that with PUA you get the intro, the middle, and the lead ideas that allow you to expand further, if you so wish. And its the "if you so wish" thats important here.

IF guys want to just pick up a girl in a bar or other social setting, then PUA offers them everything they need. IF the guy wants to improve their success rate, then again, PUA does provide the support base and information. IF however, the guy wants to move beyond the basics of dating, (i.e. improve actual relationships, communication skills, social perception, etc) then PUA provides the hints along the way to allow further exploration.

I'm not quite sure why PUA has to take someone the whole way.. Although, lets face it, PUA just provides an opportunity. All the work rests on the user, and perhaps thats the biggest weakness. Most of the guys I know that criticise PUA tried it themselves for a week or two and bottomed out to return to the traditional dating setup. The people I know who approve of PUA have stuck it out through the hard times and have seen it value. And most of them have gone further by research hypnosis (self mostly), meditation, sociology, nlp etc etc etc. The list is really endless what is opened up to us.

As for social intelligence... the basis of any real, and mostly reliable PUA rests on communication and the ability to understand your partner. If you can't understand whats happening in front of you, how can you respond/influence it? (Although if you're referring to PUA like Seduction.alt.fast or the earlier material then I totally agree with you. It doesn't. But it has changed a lot since then.)

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

As for social intelligence... the basis of any real, and mostly reliable PUA rests on communication and the ability to understand your partner. If you can't understand whats happening in front of you, how can you respond/influence it? (Although if you're referring to PUA like Seduction.alt.fast or the earlier material then I totally agree with you. It doesn't. But it has changed a lot since then.)

Fair enough points. Social intelligence is about more than PUA or picking up women though, it applies to all aspects of life, I think you are aware of that, so preaching to the converted there. It's a very delicate and nuanced thing, lines or one way thinking wont cut it, and that tends to be what you see in the PUA debates.

Might take a bit of time to read upon the latest stuff. I found it getting repetitive after a while but then again I had different reasons for using it than you. The debates about it don't seem to have moved on but that's mainly because it seems the majority of users see it as a means to an end.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Fair enough points. Social intelligence is about more than PUA or picking up women though, it applies to all aspects of life, I think you are aware of that, so preaching to the converted there. It's a very delicate and nuanced thing, lines or one way thinking wont cut it, and that tends to be what you see in the PUA debates.

TBPH I googled social intellience, and had a look at wiki. I'd heard the term before, and seen it in a few books, but didn't really know what it meant. And honestly, I suppose you could say the whole basis of my PUA "skill" comes down to understanding, rapport and forming a connection with someone. These were also the basis for my credit control work, and now my teaching work here in China. Although I do have to go a fair bit beyond language for understanding, and rapport with the chinese.

The funny thing is that I see PUA as not being just about picking up women. It provided a framework for me to learn skills that i have applied to every aspect of my life. My relationship with my parents (which had always been rocky) improved immeasurably once I started PUA. My work and the type of friends I attracted also improved.

Might take a bit of time to read upon the latest stuff. I found it getting repetitive after a while but then again I had different reasons for using it than you. The debates about it don't seem to have moved on but that's mainly because it seems the majority of users see it as a means to an end.

The debates will always revolve around certain key areas, just as the discussions here on boards tend to, as well. I would recommend the Palo Alto tapes from Ross Jeffries.. They're not new. They're easily over 6-7 years old but they're one of the best resources I have ever seen or heard. Then I'd suggest looking at The Seduction manual by Dave Reiker (can't remember the exact name), but he takes a very scientific approach to seduction and removes all the strutting and ego.

I don't keep up to date all that much. I have some great friends still involved in the scene, and talk with them but my own "game" has moved light years away from the mainstream PUA scene. In the West, language was a key component of any seduction for me, but now I live in China where I have had to learn a very different form of seduction where language is less important. But its so much fun to do..

Nikolas Breezy Manuscript

Nikolas Breezy Manuscript wrote: »

I don't agree with PUAs. The whole thing very dishonest.

Nice blanket statement. :rolleyes: My PUA method relies on complete honesty. I tell a girl how I feel. (Proper intonations at all times) And it works because women/girls will generally pick up on lies.

The "whole thing" isn't dishonest. It depends on the person using the material.

If a girl is dumb enough to fall for it, well shes not a very smart girl.

I could sit with you, using the skills I learned in NLP, and have you change your mind on most arguments without you realising I was using NLP or PUA related material. It doesn't come down to being dumb or being smart. In fact smarter people are easier since they're so confident in their own opinions that its easy to confuse them/shake their foundations.

Its not really PUA. Its psychology and understanding people's responses.

Id never lie to a girl to get her to bed, id sooner tell her I just want to bang you. This honesty is often not appreciated but there you go.

Sure it is. You just have to learn how to phrase it properly, and that is what PUA can help you with.

I have told women right from the beginning that I just wanted to sleep with them, and that we would have to get that out of the way before we could explore any meaningful relationship... Just get the right packaging and just about anything can be appreciated depending on the person in question.

Standman

I think PUA can enable a man to leave his anxieties behind, just be in the moment, and display himself in a way that brings out the best in himself. I think it addresses the main obstacle to a lot of men which is the difficulty in that first approach, and how to avoid awkwardness. What puts me off it a bit is the use of things like "NLP" and hypnosis. I am really very skeptical of NLP and it reminds me of a lot of pseudo-scientific bullsh*t. The same with hypnosis, while I don't deny I'm sure it can benefit people in some way, I would put it up there with acupuncture and homeopathy.

Standman

Standman wrote: »

I think PUA can enable a man to leave his anxieties behind, just be in the moment, and display himself in a way that brings out the best in himself. I think it addresses the main obstacle to a lot of men which is the difficulty in that first approach, and how to avoid awkwardness. What puts me off it a bit is the use of things like "NLP" and hypnosis. I am really very skeptical of NLP and it reminds me of a lot of pseudo-scientific bullsh*t. The same with hypnosis, while I don't deny I'm sure it can benefit people in some way, I would put it up there with acupuncture and homeopathy.

NLP has received a lot of bad press from when it began right through to present times. As with any area of pschology there are gray areas of responsibility from the users or researchers. Frankly, I feel there is too much scaremongering from people who don't understand the work & commitment to actually become good enough at NLP to influence other people. Instead there's this belief that nasty people will learn it and use it for misdeads. Well, its been out for a few decades now, and we don't have hordes of horror stories about it.

I've been reading NLP related material for over a decade now. TBH most NLP books are extremely dry and boring. Its a serious commitment to make it through one book never mind about reading a dozen. And by now, I have read over a dozen of such books, and looked into multiple research papers. but the funny thing is that NLP doesn't really address the areas that people accuse it of being ominous about.

I use NLP daily. I use it to understand people. The structure of the langauge that people use on a regular basis gives insights into their actual personalities. Not necessarily the image they project to the world, but rather the controlling interest. Add in, that noticing such language structure allows me to be more aware of different people types. I haven't dated a weirdo or psyho since I started reading NLP.

NLP has given me the tools to help my friends. People seek me out because I ask the right questions, and give them advice that they're prepared to accept. Rather than hearing the usual crap doled out by others, they come for insights that can actually help.

Do I influence conersations? Yup I do. But you can do that without NLP. Do I control people? Nope. NLP is extremely limited in its scope to do that. But NLP does give you the tools to be a more understanding person (of yourself and others).

Lastly... I'd suggest reading a serious book on NLP the whole way through. I guarantee that it will take you months with regular periods where you just can't face reading such dry material. But when applied to your own life after some time, it can yield massive benefits.

I've received quite a number of requests from people here asking for more info about how I learned PUA. Seems they feel mine is more scientific or natural than the mainstream crap like the Game.

I can't break it down for them/you. I've been doing this and reading about dating for over a decade. I've gone out to test various methods or just to watch people to see how they interact with each other. So there has been serious commitment on my part in this.

When I was young, I withdrew from people because of some past hurt. As such... in my twenties, I simply didn't understand why people did the things they did. So in a way I was lucky... I was a fairly blank slate. I originally started PUA to meet girls. But later it became a focus for me in understanding people. I was also working as a credit controller where people lie to you every day, so it was of benefit to understand people and language better. Which is how I stumbled into NLP.

I started with DeAngelo and the mainstream PUA crap... and got disillusioned with it extremely quickly. I'm a "nice" guy, and most of that stuff doesn't suit my personality. It wasn't natural to me, and frankly I wasn't prepare to be an asshole to get women. Then I found Ross Jeffries, and everything got much better. Its not just RJ though. He had a crew of past students and friends who all produced regular material focused on different areas. I highly recommend Dave Reiker. Extremely scientific approach to dating, and uses a lot of NLP related material.

But TBH I can't say exactly what I use. Or even recommend books for you to read. Most books only contain nuggets of useful information. And alas, it really comes down to your own personality. You will take what you need. I'm sorry to say there is no easy way for my approach. It comes down to experience. Experience gives me confidence, and the ability to respond to most circumstances.

my advice. Start a diary. record every approach. Every interaction where you learn something new. And keep them going as time goes by. You will learn so much from them... I started a diary when I began with RJ. I now have at least 20 diaries filled with my experiences, and I read back over them fairly often. It makes extremely funny reading (My parents found one a while back and were in bits laughing at my experiences.)

But ultimately it comes down to doing approaches. Everywhere. I tend to avoid irish clubs since they're a rather hostile environment with too many drunks and the music too loud. In Ireland I tend to meet girls on the street, bus stops, book stores, etc. Outside of Ireland, I'll go to clubs but TBH I just use plain honesty (and the experience of a decade in understanding body language and actual language). "I like you... you like me.. lets have some fun". Bla Bla Bla. Most of the time it works because I have no expectation of it going beyond just having fun. I remove sex from the equation. Most times if you do that, then the girl will broach the subject herself.

Waestrel

Interesting stuff mate. Self improvement is a worthy goal.

Standman

My issue with NLP is not that it could possibly be used in some sinister way, it's that it seems a bit on the pseudo-scientific side. Just the name puts me off a bit "Neuro Linguistic Programming", does it actually imply that we can somehow "program" another persons opinion of us using subtle language, intonations and mannerisms? From what I've read of it so far it seems it has a lot to do with basic body language and adjusting it from person to person in order to make them feel comfortable around you, which is something I have no problem with apart from the fact that to give it the name "NLP" seems to afford it some kind of scientific title it does not deserve and may be quite irrelevant. Maybe you could clarify what are the basic tenets of NLP and at what the title actually refers to in practice?

leggo

I remember I had a chat with Neil Strauss (he's the guy who wrote 'The Game', for anyone who doesn't know) and shared my concerns about NLP with him.

I had asked him during a talk he gave in Trinity but his answer hadn't quelled my worries. All he said there was, "You can't remove free will."

That was all well and good, but at the time I was also in the middle of a (brief) stint working door-to-door sales. Every day there I convinced people that they needed to buy a certain television package when...I knew in the back of my mind...they didn't particularly need it. So, while I wasn't removing their free will, I was playing upon feelings that were there and selling them a product they didn't need for my own personal gain.

After speaking in-depth with him, I now have a much different view of it.

Take the people I'm selling TV packages to: do you walk always walk into a shop with your mind set on purchasing something specific? Do you ever walk in and end up purchasing much more? Do none of those products ever end up having a positive influence on your life? I know I'm a demon for buying DVDs on the spur of the moment. Yeah, some of those gather dust but many end up getting watched and enjoyed. I don't particularly regret buying them either. Maybe one day I will watch and enjoy them. Maybe not.

But is that the shop's fault for making me want them? You could argue their business is to manipulate me into buying as much from them as possible. You could argue that that's not fair. But where do I start to take personal responsibility for my own decisions?

In matters of love, we don't walk up to a person we fancy and say "JUDGE ME! AND I WILL ACCEPT YOUR JUDGEMENT!" We want to influence a positive reaction from them. If we were to be completely 'fair', we'd list our pros and cons in full discretion and wait to be reviewed. I don't tell girls, for example, that I've cheated on someone before unless they ask or until they get to know me and can get the perspective that led me to do so. A guy who is, say 28, and hasn't had sex yet isn't going to tell a girl he just met that because he knows it will lead her to make a rash decision.

We judge on what is presented to us then fill in the blanks around that. NLP is just one way of trying to influence a positive reaction and is by no means powerful enough to convince someone who is disgusted by you to sleep with you. People seem to liken it to hypnosis, well a secret of hypnosis is that the will to be hypnotised is pivotal to its success. If you don't, on some level, want to be put under, you won't be. NLP is a similar deal. If you don't wish to respond to this person, there's no way they can influence you to do so. They are as complicit in their response as I am in buying a DVD. Yes, the cover was nice and it has cool extras, but ultimately I want this product because I feel there is a vacancy in my life a good movie could fill. The fact that it was packaged well just helped me feel comfortable with my decision.

I'm not a massive practitioner of it myself, but the fundamentals of NLP are all solid and stand up to moral scrutiny. The parts of it that veer on the immoral are down to how they are put into practise by individuals. But that's like blaming the gun or knife for some guy going on a mass murder spree.

Standman

Standman wrote: »

My issue with NLP is not that it could possibly be used in some sinister way, it's that it seems a bit on the pseudo-scientific side. Just the name puts me off a bit "Neuro Linguistic Programming",

TBH despite reading this for so long, I tend to stay clear of the scientific babble names. You can find such in most scientific areas. Instead of picking perfectly reasonable names they decide to use labels which are frankly silly, and annoying. I usually have to google the fancy phrases that posters here use quite often. (haven't you noticed the phrases used to describe political ideas? absolutely nutty)

does it actually imply that we can somehow "program" another persons opinion of us using subtle language, intonations and mannerisms? From what I've read of it so far it seems it has a lot to do with basic body language and adjusting it from person to person in order to make them feel comfortable around you,

Body language is part of it, but only part. For me, I look into NLP in regards to the actual structure (word structure, intonation, pacing, word stress, etc) that people use in choosing to speak. The words that people use are a reflection of their state of mind, personal conditioning, or a symbol of the type of personality they use. Take English for example... we have dozens of words and phrases that describe essentially the same thing, although there are subtle differences in most cases. So why does the person you're talking to use that particular word?

(Think of what beautiful, pretty, sexy, attractive, hot, lovely actually mean to you. Then look them up in the dictionary. You'll probably see some differences in meaning. I noticed this when I started teaching, but never really thought about it beforehand.. why? Because I tended to only use beautiful & attractive all the time)

I'm guessing the following phrase will get ripped apart here, but I personally love it. "Language structures consciousness" and for me, and my life, that particular phrase has had a huge impact.

For me.. NLP is about seeing patterns in speech/action, and learning to interpret them. I'm not saying that I will know someone inside out, but I will have a better insight into their attitudes as a result of observing carefully what they say. It also helps me to be more careful with the language I use, and seriously helps me as an English Language teacher here in China.

From the aspect of asking questions, NLP provides the ability to cut through the useless (and often false) responses and find the real answers that often the person themselves didn't know existed. I've been on the receiving end of this and I can say its very revealing from a personal aspect. But as leggo says it starts and stops with free will. There is no coercion involved. There's no trickery involved. TBH its actually more obvious in many ways than normal speech habits.

which is something I have no problem with apart from the fact that to give it the name "NLP" seems to afford it some kind of scientific title it does not deserve and may be quite irrelevant. Maybe you could clarify what are the basic tenets of NLP and at what the title actually refers to in practice?

Does it deserve such a title? I think so. It is science. Its learning something new about language, and social interactions which many of the other areas of psychology disdained to explore.

Lastly, I'm not a NLP practitioner, or expert. I couldn't have an in-depth conversation citing all those fancy words or such. I use NLP as a part of a lifestyle. I'm not saying that all of NLP is useful or wonderful. I am saying that parts of it can be extremely useful when used alongside other ideas.

There is too much of a tendancy on boards, or by people to paint a whole area as being bad, useless, etc etc etc ignoring by convenience that there many parts which can be of tremendous help. And it is very interesting when you start applying it. Simply because you have to apply it to yourself before you can use it with others... and I know very few people willing to explore themselves with that level of honesty.

leggo

It is science

Just on that point, this is an interesting, unbiased article on NLP that gives it a fair shake:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4155

Today we're going to point our skeptical eye at Neuro-linguistic Programming, a New Age communication technique intended to facilitate the exertion of influence. Is it science, or is it another spin-the-wheel-and-invent-a-new-self-help-system disguising its marketing within scientific sounding language?

It was the early 1970's, and a young psychology student at the University of California, Santa Cruz was spending another late night in the lab. Richard Bandler's assignment was to transcribe hours and hours of psychotherapy sessions from the maverick German psychiatrist Fritz Perls. After transcribing until his hands were about to fall off, Bandler noticed an interesting pattern in the way Perls spoke to his patients. Perls had an odd — almost annoying — habit of taking his patients' comments and going back over them with very specific questions, forcing the patients to closely re-examine their wording. Sometimes it seemed that you couldn't make the simplest remark without Perls raking you over the coals. What made you choose this word; what are the implications of your statement? Perls would force his patients to confront the causes and motivations of even the most casual remark. Bandler noticed that this technique had a dramatic effect. Patients would eventually be ground down to the point that they were unable to explain themselves, leaving something of an internal void, and became exceptionally receptive to Perls' suggestions to fill that void. Rather than resenting what might be called harsh cross examination, patients instead tended to embrace the process; and Bandler found that taken as a whole, Perls' technique seemed highly effective.

Bandler reported his discovery to John Grinder, who was a linguist at Santa Cruz. Grinder was intrigued. The two discussed Bandler's findings at length, and decided to look for other incidences of the same pattern. They found them in the psychotherapy sessions of pioneering family therapist Virginia Satir. Believing that they'd stumbled onto something significant, Bandler and Grinder documented and codified the technique, and named it the Meta Model. Built largely around the Meta Model, the two men published the first two of many books to come in 1975. They heralded their discovery as a breakthrough in psychotherapy that would "help people have better, fuller and richer lives." (Keep in mind that this alleged breakthrough in psychotherapy was created by an undergrad and a linguist, neither of whom was a psychotherapist; though Bandler did go on to get an MA in psychology.)

They then built upon their Meta Model with a very different communication technique that they learned by studying the work of hypnotherapist Milton Erickson. Erickson's style was the polar opposite of the high pressure of the Meta Model. What he did was to give general suggestions to his hypnotherapy clients. He wouldn't give specific directions like "You feel happy," instead he'd give a suggestion like "You're free to feel this way if you want to." Not "Put the cup on the counter," but "Consider other places you might like to put the cup, somewhere over there for example." In this way, Erickson was able to guide the client through to his desired destination, but by leaving all the specific steps to get there up to the client, thus empowering them. Bandler and Grinder called this the Milton Model. They found both to be effective tools for influencing others.

Together, the Meta Model and the Milton Model formed the basis for what they came to call Neuro-linguistic Programming. Bandler and Grinder were up to five books by the time they published their Milton Model, and from then on, their subsequent books covered their whole umbrella of Neuro-linguistic Programming, shortened to NLP. By now, the books were being published by Bandler's own publishing company, Meta Publications. They also offered training workshops and classes, marketed at first through psychology trade publications. But it turned out their business came not from the industry, but from business managers, sales professionals, and New Age enthusiasts. NLP grew from the same roots, and shared many of the same customers, with EST and Esalen, also located in the same region around the northern California coast. Throughout the 1970's, such groups peddled self-help philosophies typically ignored by the mainstream. Bandler, Grinder, and the group of associates that grew around them became wealthy and successful, until the early 1980's when trademark disputes, mutual lawsuits, and Bandler's trial for the cocaine-fueled murder of a prostitute (for which he was acquitted) caused all the NLP leaders to splinter off from one another. Today the term NLP is in the public domain, and most of the original founders still publish their own material and teach their own classes using the term, but there is no one organization that owns the trademark.

I've read a fair amount about NLP, and my analysis of the Meta Model is pretty simple. I'd describe it as a confrontational manner of speaking intended to dominate a conversation by nitpicking the other's persons sentences apart. For example, if it's a good day and all is well, I might be inclined to make an offhand, general comment like "I feel pretty good today." The Meta Model response to that is "What specifically makes you feel good?" And, I don't really know. I don't really have a single, specific answer. And whatever I do come up with gets attacked the same way: "Exactly why does that make you feel good?" And suddenly I'm on the defensive; I'm being made to feel that I'm in error, the position I've taken is revealed to be unsupported; and I'm now putty in the NLP guy's hands. Basically, it's being a condescending jerk in the way you talk to someone, in order to exert influence. That's the Meta Model. It's not psychotherapy; it's high-pressure sales. The Milton Model takes a different road to the same destination: low-pressure sales.

And it's not just sales. It's negotiation in business. It's gaining the upper hand in interpersonal relationships. It's being an effective manager or sports coach. But — and this is the big "but" — despite the claims of those who sell NLP books and seminars, it is not part of modern psychotherapy. Russia and the UK do have professional associations of NLP practitioners, but these are composed largely of people selling books and seminars, and only rarely of credentialed psychiatrists. In 2005, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published the results of a comprehensive study of all the publications regarding NLP and similar modalities, which it grouped together under the term "power therapies". The article states:

Advocates of new therapies frequently make bold claims regarding therapeutic effectiveness, particularly in response to disorders which have been traditionally treatment-refractory. This paper reviews a collection of new therapies collectively self-termed 'The Power Therapies', outlining their proposed procedures and the evidence for and against their use. These therapies are then put to the test for pseudoscientific practice... It is concluded that these new therapies have offered no new scientifically valid theories of action, show only non-specific efficacy, show no evidence that they offer substantive improvements to extant psychiatric care, yet display many characteristics consistent with pseudoscience.

It seems the only mentions of NLP to be found in mainstream journals are critical, when they can be found at all, outside of the hypnotism and other fringe journals. Even way back in 1987, the Journal of Counseling Psychology published an article that:

Examines the experimental literature on neurolinguistic programming (NLP). [The authors] concluded that the effectiveness of this therapy was yet to be demonstrated. Presents data from seven recent studies that further question the basic tenets of NLP and their application in counseling situations.

Dig far enough and you can find publications that support the therapeutic use of NLP, albeit from journals of varying repute. Wikipedia's article on NLP provides a long list of such articles, so if you wanted to state the case that NLP is science, it would be easy to go there and back yourself up. Well, of course, Joe Blow on the street has no real way of knowing which side he should believe, so this is one case where I'd recommend looking at the meta analyses: Studies that attempt to summarize all the articles out there. The largest of these (that I could find) was done by Michael Heap in 1988:

If the assertions made by proponents of NLP about representational systems and their behavioural manifestations are correct, then its founders have made remarkable discoveries about the human mind and brain, which would have important implications for human psychology, particularly cognitive science and neuropsychology. Yet there is no mention of them in learned textbooks or journals devoted to these disciplines. Neither is this material taught in psychology courses at the pre-degree and degree level.

Heap also found that when he asked colleagues about NLP, they generally hadn't even heard of it. Whatever else you want to say about NLP, the fact is that it is not part of mainstream psychology. That doesn't make it wrong or useless; it just means that it's not part of established, practiced science.

So really, what we have with NLP boils down to just another pop-culture, New Age, self-help system that disingenuously markets itself as science. Read this book and you'll be a better manager, a better salesman, more successful. The promise of results — be they money, success, interpersonal, psychological — is a red flag that you're solidly outside the world of professional psychology, or any other branch of medical science. If any doctor or other profession ever guarantees you results, or tells you that goals are only a few simple steps away, you have very good cause to be skeptical.

Many of the same claims could be levelled at PUA (and rightfully so, in many cases). Do not mistake self-help for science. This is its problem in many ways: some gurus market themselves as "get more women or your money back". It has its merits, but is not be-all, end-all. Taken as the latter, it deserves scorn. But seen for what it actually is, has many positive upsides.

leggo

It is science

Just on that point, this is an interesting, unbiased article on NLP that gives it a fair shake:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4155

Today we're going to point our skeptical eye at Neuro-linguistic Programming, a New Age communication technique intended to facilitate the exertion of influence. Is it science, or is it another spin-the-wheel-and-invent-a-new-self-help-system disguising its marketing within scientific sounding language?

It was the early 1970's, and a young psychology student at the University of California, Santa Cruz was spending another late night in the lab. Richard Bandler's assignment was to transcribe hours and hours of psychotherapy sessions from the maverick German psychiatrist Fritz Perls. After transcribing until his hands were about to fall off, Bandler noticed an interesting pattern in the way Perls spoke to his patients. Perls had an odd — almost annoying — habit of taking his patients' comments and going back over them with very specific questions, forcing the patients to closely re-examine their wording. Sometimes it seemed that you couldn't make the simplest remark without Perls raking you over the coals. What made you choose this word; what are the implications of your statement? Perls would force his patients to confront the causes and motivations of even the most casual remark. Bandler noticed that this technique had a dramatic effect. Patients would eventually be ground down to the point that they were unable to explain themselves, leaving something of an internal void, and became exceptionally receptive to Perls' suggestions to fill that void. Rather than resenting what might be called harsh cross examination, patients instead tended to embrace the process; and Bandler found that taken as a whole, Perls' technique seemed highly effective.

Bandler reported his discovery to John Grinder, who was a linguist at Santa Cruz. Grinder was intrigued. The two discussed Bandler's findings at length, and decided to look for other incidences of the same pattern. They found them in the psychotherapy sessions of pioneering family therapist Virginia Satir. Believing that they'd stumbled onto something significant, Bandler and Grinder documented and codified the technique, and named it the Meta Model. Built largely around the Meta Model, the two men published the first two of many books to come in 1975. They heralded their discovery as a breakthrough in psychotherapy that would "help people have better, fuller and richer lives." (Keep in mind that this alleged breakthrough in psychotherapy was created by an undergrad and a linguist, neither of whom was a psychotherapist; though Bandler did go on to get an MA in psychology.)

They then built upon their Meta Model with a very different communication technique that they learned by studying the work of hypnotherapist Milton Erickson. Erickson's style was the polar opposite of the high pressure of the Meta Model. What he did was to give general suggestions to his hypnotherapy clients. He wouldn't give specific directions like "You feel happy," instead he'd give a suggestion like "You're free to feel this way if you want to." Not "Put the cup on the counter," but "Consider other places you might like to put the cup, somewhere over there for example." In this way, Erickson was able to guide the client through to his desired destination, but by leaving all the specific steps to get there up to the client, thus empowering them. Bandler and Grinder called this the Milton Model. They found both to be effective tools for influencing others.

Together, the Meta Model and the Milton Model formed the basis for what they came to call Neuro-linguistic Programming. Bandler and Grinder were up to five books by the time they published their Milton Model, and from then on, their subsequent books covered their whole umbrella of Neuro-linguistic Programming, shortened to NLP. By now, the books were being published by Bandler's own publishing company, Meta Publications. They also offered training workshops and classes, marketed at first through psychology trade publications. But it turned out their business came not from the industry, but from business managers, sales professionals, and New Age enthusiasts. NLP grew from the same roots, and shared many of the same customers, with EST and Esalen, also located in the same region around the northern California coast. Throughout the 1970's, such groups peddled self-help philosophies typically ignored by the mainstream. Bandler, Grinder, and the group of associates that grew around them became wealthy and successful, until the early 1980's when trademark disputes, mutual lawsuits, and Bandler's trial for the cocaine-fueled murder of a prostitute (for which he was acquitted) caused all the NLP leaders to splinter off from one another. Today the term NLP is in the public domain, and most of the original founders still publish their own material and teach their own classes using the term, but there is no one organization that owns the trademark.

I've read a fair amount about NLP, and my analysis of the Meta Model is pretty simple. I'd describe it as a confrontational manner of speaking intended to dominate a conversation by nitpicking the other's persons sentences apart. For example, if it's a good day and all is well, I might be inclined to make an offhand, general comment like "I feel pretty good today." The Meta Model response to that is "What specifically makes you feel good?" And, I don't really know. I don't really have a single, specific answer. And whatever I do come up with gets attacked the same way: "Exactly why does that make you feel good?" And suddenly I'm on the defensive; I'm being made to feel that I'm in error, the position I've taken is revealed to be unsupported; and I'm now putty in the NLP guy's hands. Basically, it's being a condescending jerk in the way you talk to someone, in order to exert influence. That's the Meta Model. It's not psychotherapy; it's high-pressure sales. The Milton Model takes a different road to the same destination: low-pressure sales.

And it's not just sales. It's negotiation in business. It's gaining the upper hand in interpersonal relationships. It's being an effective manager or sports coach. But — and this is the big "but" — despite the claims of those who sell NLP books and seminars, it is not part of modern psychotherapy. Russia and the UK do have professional associations of NLP practitioners, but these are composed largely of people selling books and seminars, and only rarely of credentialed psychiatrists. In 2005, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published the results of a comprehensive study of all the publications regarding NLP and similar modalities, which it grouped together under the term "power therapies". The article states:

Advocates of new therapies frequently make bold claims regarding therapeutic effectiveness, particularly in response to disorders which have been traditionally treatment-refractory. This paper reviews a collection of new therapies collectively self-termed 'The Power Therapies', outlining their proposed procedures and the evidence for and against their use. These therapies are then put to the test for pseudoscientific practice... It is concluded that these new therapies have offered no new scientifically valid theories of action, show only non-specific efficacy, show no evidence that they offer substantive improvements to extant psychiatric care, yet display many characteristics consistent with pseudoscience.

It seems the only mentions of NLP to be found in mainstream journals are critical, when they can be found at all, outside of the hypnotism and other fringe journals. Even way back in 1987, the Journal of Counseling Psychology published an article that:

Examines the experimental literature on neurolinguistic programming (NLP). [The authors] concluded that the effectiveness of this therapy was yet to be demonstrated. Presents data from seven recent studies that further question the basic tenets of NLP and their application in counseling situations.

Dig far enough and you can find publications that support the therapeutic use of NLP, albeit from journals of varying repute. Wikipedia's article on NLP provides a long list of such articles, so if you wanted to state the case that NLP is science, it would be easy to go there and back yourself up. Well, of course, Joe Blow on the street has no real way of knowing which side he should believe, so this is one case where I'd recommend looking at the meta analyses: Studies that attempt to summarize all the articles out there. The largest of these (that I could find) was done by Michael Heap in 1988:

If the assertions made by proponents of NLP about representational systems and their behavioural manifestations are correct, then its founders have made remarkable discoveries about the human mind and brain, which would have important implications for human psychology, particularly cognitive science and neuropsychology. Yet there is no mention of them in learned textbooks or journals devoted to these disciplines. Neither is this material taught in psychology courses at the pre-degree and degree level.

Heap also found that when he asked colleagues about NLP, they generally hadn't even heard of it. Whatever else you want to say about NLP, the fact is that it is not part of mainstream psychology. That doesn't make it wrong or useless; it just means that it's not part of established, practiced science.

So really, what we have with NLP boils down to just another pop-culture, New Age, self-help system that disingenuously markets itself as science. Read this book and you'll be a better manager, a better salesman, more successful. The promise of results — be they money, success, interpersonal, psychological — is a red flag that you're solidly outside the world of professional psychology, or any other branch of medical science. If any doctor or other profession ever guarantees you results, or tells you that goals are only a few simple steps away, you have very good cause to be skeptical.

Many of the same claims could be levelled at PUA (and rightfully so, in many cases). Do not mistake self-help for science. This is its problem in many ways: some gurus market themselves as "get more women or your money back". It has its merits, but is not be-all, end-all. Taken as the latter, it deserves scorn. But seen for what it actually is, has many positive upsides.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

Many of the same claims could be levelled at PUA (and rightfully so, in many cases). Do not mistake self-help for science. This is its problem in many ways: some gurus market themselves as "get more women or your money back". It has its merits, but is not be-all, end-all. Taken as the latter, it deserves scorn. But seen for what it actually is, has many positive upsides.

I'm not. I said NLP was science. I use NLP, Psychology, and sociology (all part of science) material in my PUA (not science) style lifestyle.

I don't believe I make PUA seem better than it is. PUA on its own is extremely limited, but when used in conjunction with other disciplines then it can work extremely well depending on what you actually want. (not necessarily what you think you want now)

leggo

klaz wrote: »

I'm not. I said NLP was science. I use NLP, Psychology, and sociology (all part of science) material in my PUA (not science) style lifestyle.

I don't believe I make PUA seem better than it is. PUA on its own is extremely limited, but when used in conjunction with other disciplines then it can work extremely well depending on what you actually want. (not necessarily what you think you want now)

Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side here. I just feel that arguing NLP's scientific merit leaves it open for unfair criticism. So the article was important to add for balance.

Snowie

Sleepy wrote: »

I've read 'The Game' and found it quite funny tbh.

Funny and kinda cringey Made me re think my opinion of cortney love well a litttle she did say some very intlegent things.

Tho the game is a very clever peace of marketing.
How much it helps me or there ethics i found it hard to believe at times what i was reading over all, didnt really bring much insight.

Look how many women i can pull because i do this this and this, in this robotic manor, while it may work in some case's a man can never hope to use this to find a girl friend because he's a doing something robotic which means appart form going to work hes going to have to soically enginer a situation to make him sound funny... Eventually I think the girl would get board...

I think a lot of people who read those books well there are things you can learn over all the only thing its doing is teaching you amore flaboyent ways to attract women
i.m.h.o

leggo

leggo wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side here. I just feel that arguing NLP's scientific merit leaves it open for unfair criticism. So the article was important to add for balance.

The funny thing is that I didn't seek to argue NLP's scientific merit. Someone else threw in how "dodgy" it was... and obviously knew very little about what NLP actually entails.

The point is that NLP can offer insights into human personality, language patterns, and behavior that can increase our ability to understand other people. From a dating/relationship perspective that can't be underestimated. The aspect of this with regards to NLP criticism is that there's loads of articles and complaints bemoaning how people don't try or just fail to understand each other in relationships, and here is a avenue of research which can provide people with the very perspective to do just that.

I use NLP as part of a tool-box of ideas/concepts. Throw in meditation, self-hypnosis, visualisation routines, training my voice etc and posters can nit-pick as much as they want... but the simple fact is that it works. I am highly successful in meeting people, in relationships, and in teaching.

Snow-Monkey wrote:

I think a lot of people who read those books well there are things you can learn over all the only thing its doing is teaching you amore flaboyent ways to attract women
i.m.h.o

The Game doesn't really "teach" anything. Its a story book advertising device and frankly i found it rather crap. As for those "other" books it depends on what you buy. Many are complete horse**** design to occupy the gullible with fantasy tales of how they can succeed with very little effort. There are others though which do describe the reality and provide some guidance. But there's no complete bible of PUA in one book, and nothing removes the need for extensive fieldwork....

The simple fact is though that people can learn these things themselves. They just don't. We're a people of convenience. We expect to be born with the talent and skills to do just about anything socially. And when we're not.. well.. its a lot of effort to learn by yourself. So you either stick to conventional dating or learn from someone else. Honestly, I prefer the people who are willing to stick their heads out and learn to operate better.

I grew up in the midlands. I'm in my mid-thirties so entered the dating scene in the mid-90's. The conventional dating scence revolved solely around the pub, unless you were either rich, sporty, play great music or lastly had a nice stash of drugs somewhere. For the rest of us, it revolved around getting drunk, and relying on luck (for the most part). [Ahh the wonderful slow sets where you ask girls for a dance.. lovely] I can still remember my friends cruising the bars and streets looking for drunk girls because it was easier... and perfectly acceptable. Alas... I hated that scene. Still do.

The problem with dating is that everyone expects you to just know how to do it, and to accept the rejections as being part of the process. Well, I don't. If there is a process then it can be influenced. And getting the skills (from wherever) to improve your "Game" should never be considered unimportant. Besides it makes your date feel better.

Alas... any self-improvement in this area will always be diminished by the people who either are naturally good at it, or by those that feel fine by accepting the status quo.