The Ethics of PUA

Scanlas The 2nd

SugarHigh wrote: »

No one on this thread who has done PUA has admitted it gives people a negative view of women which seems like self delusion to me because that's clearly what it does. It turns women into an object thats up for grabs as a prize which is dehumanising them.

This is why it works to break down the guys fear of women. He's no longer dealing with a person who intimidates him it's just an object you have no respect for. Who cares if you get rejected by an object you don't respect so it also removes the fear of rejection.

Maybe because you are so engrosed in this stuff you don't see the reality of why it works. The people who sell you the PUA are basically tricking you like you trick women. The women don't know the real reason why they like you(because you've played them) and the people who buy this stuff don't know the reason why it works(tearing down women). If you were open about what you were doing to a woman they'd run a mile and perhaps if the PUA were open about what they were selling you ten you'd also run a mile. It's clearly a guide on how to decieve women.

You lose your fear of women through dismantling your own ego ( Well I don't think you ever completely lose it). By realizing you are no better or worse than anyone else regardless of what happens. Then on top of that you do loads of approaches despite your fear. After a while you lose your fear diminishes as your brain realises approaching women isn't a serious threat. Much like diving off a high diving board. Only through repetition does your brain realise that it is not a serious threat and your fear diminishes.

You will do better with women if you see them as human beings, not some conceptualized target.

SugarHigh

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You lose your fear of women through dismantling your own ego ( Well I don't think you ever completely lose it). By realizing you are no better or worse than anyone else regardless of what happens. Then on top of that you do loads of approaches despite your fear. After a while you lose your fear diminishes as your brain realises approaching women isn't a serious threat. Much like diving off a high diving board. Only through repetition does your brain realise that it is not a serious threat and your fear diminishes.

You will do better with women if you see them as human beings, not some conceptualized target.

I've never read PUA but that sounds fair enough apart from the dismantling your own ego. I really don't think doing PUA will leave someone with a smaller ego. I've watched the videos you posted in TGC and the game came off as egotistical ****.:D

However since you're someone who bought into PUA do you not think it's likely that the people teaching you how to manipulate* women are also going to be open to the idea of manipulating you?

You manipulate women for sex they manipulate you for money.

*I know you probably don't like to think of it as manipulation but that's clearly what it is whether you're comfortable with that term or not. Keep in mind that I also view guys who are natural with women to be good at manipulation because I view basically all social interaction as people manipulating each other.

Scanlas The 2nd

SugarHigh wrote: »

I've never read PUA but that sounds fair enough apart from the dismantling your own ego. I really don't think doing PUA will leave someone with a smaller ego. I've watched the videos you posted in TGC and the game came off as egotistical ****.:D

However since you're someone who bought into PUA do you not think it's likely that the people teaching you how to manipulate* women are also going to be open to the idea of manipulating you?

You manipulate women for sex they manipulate you for money.

*I know you probably don't like to think of it as manipulation but that's clearly what it is whether you're comfortable with that term or not. Keep in mind that I also view guys who are natural with women to be good at manipulation because I view basically all social interaction as people manipulating each other.

There are cowboys operating in the PUA industry like a lot of other industries. You need to find the ones who can help you and not rip you off. Take from it what helps you and discard the rest. All I can say is it has dramatically improved my ability with women and I haven't even taken a bootcamp or anything like that. If you find the right blogs and websites you can get most of what you need for free unless you need a bootcamp.

And if I'm manipulating women then I wish people out there would manipulate me because the women I chat up usually have a pretty good time.

strobe

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Very informative thread. However I think it should be shut down and deleted so more guys don't start using this to steal all the hotties.

Just kidding but it has definitely changed my opinion. In terms of manipulation it seems like a male equivalent to make-up. Makes you seem more attractive but its not like you're hiding anything significant. Its a foot in the door, I don't really think women could be so easily played that they're going to end up sleeping with someone they would otherwise have zero interest in. That kind of woman wouldn't have made it through natural selection surely

I also think these tricks have been around for generations - this pua culture has just formalised it a bit.

That's a good point Smokey. A couple of my posts, reading back over them, may have come across as anti-this sort of stuff but that wouldn't really be my view.

I think Wibbs also made a very good point in the thread that wasn't really acknowledged. The whole thing about the stuff that get's printed in the likes of Cosmopolitan magazine (or any other female oriented magazine, or Sunday newspaper 'Lifestyle' sections, rr any media aimed specifically at women really).

They are always featuring articles like 'How to tell what men are thinking', 'How to get a man to commit', 'How to attract the right kind of guy', 'How to make men...xx, yy, zz'. These more often than not contain what is basically the perfect direct female equivalent of all this PUA stuff. Lot's of them citing psychological, biological, anthropological etc ideas and how you can twist them to manipulate men. Of course it is often much more sugar coated than that. But that is the basic concept. And this stuff has been around for a lot longer than any of the PUA type media and women have been using (or attempting to use) it readily. Decades longer, and that's not an exaggeration. Girls also come into contact with it at a much younger age than men tend to get into the male equivalent. My two older sisters used to get these 'teen magazines' that are aimed at girls when they were 12, 13 ,14. I remember having a look throw them being a nosey little brother the odd time and they consisted basically of posters of and interviews with Take That, and a watered down version of the Cosmo type stuff. 'How to tell if a boy likes you', 'How to get the boy you like to notice you' etc.

There are probably girls reading this thread thinking to themselves" This is disgraceful. Bloody men! :mad:. Girls would never do something like this". Liah even had remarks along the line of "for fukk sake, I am just giving up dating men). But the reason they can't see that their is a the female version of this is the same reason someone standing in Trafalgar Square can't see England. They are immersed in it at all times. Also in the way that guys that have never heard of or read of or completely dismiss the PUA stuff but are actually doing it 'on instinct' with out realising it, I am sure there are women who see the stuff in Cosmo or whatever and react the same way but use the (what can be pretty manipulative) techniques in that without realising they are doing it.

I was pretty dismissive of Wibbs (I think) other point along the lines of (sorry for paraphrasing you here man) "one reason for the extremely negative reaction to the PUA type stuff is women might just be annoyed that now men are reversing the whole thing back on them". But maybe, on some level, there is something to that line of thinking. I wouldn't say it is a major point but I'll concede it could be part of the whole thing.

Maybe with a bit of luck this could be like the development of nuclear arms. Maybe these things will cancel each other out now that the playing field has been leveled and some kind of M.A.D mentality will develop and they will be dropped by each side. You can always dream I guess... :pac:

liah

Have you guys actually read the stuff that's in Cosmo?

The chances of any of that crap actually working are basically zilch. The stuff is retarded and has no basis in legitimate psychology.

Not to say I don't understand your point - I do, and I agree there's just as much stuff out there for women, but that's not really what the thread's about is it? Especially since I'm the only female on the thread and it's not the kind of material I'm interested in anyway.. seems a bit misplaced here..

strobe

...and I agree it has actually been a very interesting thread. (Liah, great great call opting for Humanities. Can you imagine if this was begun in AH? It doesn't even bear thinking about. The horror..... :pac:)

============================

You know what the weird thing is though. I am supposed to be heading out for a big one in town with a few lads I know from Kerry tonight. But after reading this thread for the last couple of days I am actually thinking about giving it a miss and just having a few quite beers in my gaff or something. I just don't think I would be much craic. I would be distracted all night, trapped in my own head, watching guys and girls flirting with each other and wondering if it is natural, if one or the other is trying to run some script, if it matters, if the other new what they would think about it...

I don't even want to think about what would happen if I happened to meet a pretty girl I thought looked like good craic. I wouldn't know what to do with myself. Just on the off chance that she has been doing the same research and running the same train of thought Liah has been lately lol. Would be terrified that I was going to playfully tease her about some mannerism and alarm bells would go off in her head "OMG this could be one of those PUA things!!" and start sounding her rape whistle. Or brush an eyelash off her cheek and have her tazer me in the chest for being a sociopathic creep that just wants to trick her into bed so I can invite my friends round to laugh and point at her in the morning :eek: :pac:

(on second thoughts, screw it. I might just bang a big handful of pills before I head out and rave it up like it's still the 90's. Happy Weekend Everybody ).

liah

strobe wrote: »

...and I agree it has actually been a very interesting thread. (Liah, great great call opting for Humanities. Can you imagine if this was begun in AH? It doesn't even bear thinking about. The horror..... :pac:)

============================

You know what the weird thing is though. I am supposed to be heading out for a big one in town with a few lads I know from Kerry tonight. But after reading this thread for the last couple of days I am actually thinking about giving it a miss and just having a few quite beers in my gaff or something. I just don't think I would be much craic. I would be distracted all night, trapped in my own head, watching guys and girls flirting with each other and wondering if it is natural, if one or the other is trying to run some script, if it matters, if the other new what they would think about it...

I don't even want to think about what would happen if I happened to meet a pretty girl I thought looked like good craic. I wouldn't know what to do with myself. Just on the off chance that she has been doing the same research and running the same train of thought Liah has been lately lol. Would be terrified that I was going to playfully tease her about some mannerism and alarm bells would go off in her head "OMG this could be one of those PUA things!!" and start sounding her rape whistle. Or brush an eyelash off her cheek and have her tazer me in the chest for being a sociopathic creep that just wants to trick her into bed so I can invite my friends round to laugh and point at her in the morning :eek: :pac:

(on second thoughts, screw it. I might just bang a big handful of pills before I head out and rave it up like it's still the 90's. Happy Weekend Everybody ).

Hah, welcome to my world, the paranoia is all-consuming

Especially considering I just finished watching all 5 seasons of Dexter. EVERYONE makes me paranoid now. :eek:

strobe

liah wrote: »

Not to say I don't understand your point - I do, and I agree there's just as much stuff out there for women, but that's not really what the thread's about is it

Well the thread is about a system or certain techniques being used to manipulate members of the opposite sex into behaving in a way you wish them too, and whether that is ethical or not. The effectiveness of the techniques I think isn't really relevant to the ethics of the thing in my opinion, it's more about the motivation behind the use (which I thought we agreed on). But "they did it first Teacher" isn't much of an ethical justification for something. I just thought it was an interesting caveat really.

But I take your point and don't want to derail the thread. Apologies.

liah

strobe wrote: »

Well the thread is about a system or certain techniques being used to manipulate members of the opposite sex into behaving in a way you wish them too, and whether that is ethical or not. The effectiveness of the techniques I think isn't really relevant to the ethics of the thing in my opinion, it's more about the motivation behind the use (which I thought we agreed on). But "they did it first Teacher" isn't much of an ethical justification for something. I just thought it was an interesting caveat really.

But I take your point and don't want to derail the thread. Apologies.

It's moreso that, I don't think I can really take the argument on, because a) I'm a little outnumbered and b) I haven't read enough of the material or ever been enough of a 'normal' girl to really know what goes on (I don't even know how to flirt, for example).

So if I end up in a debate on the women's end of it, I'll be operating on a purely theoretical and assumed basis and I can't see that ending well for me. Self-defense and all :pac:

Earthhorse

Are we congratulating ourselves on what a great thread we've made? Great! Love it. Some very witty - but also insightful and humane - posts from that Earthhorse fellah in particular. He's a top bloke. Cornerstone of boards.

strobe wrote: »

I would be distracted all night, trapped in my own head, watching guys and girls flirting with each other and wondering if it is natural, if one or the other is trying to run some script, if it matters, if the other new what they would think about it...

It's funny, but after reading The Game I found myself looking at groups of girls and thinking about "ins" and "targets" and all that. It really does effect your mindset. That lasted for a while (maybe a few weeks) after reading it because it's thought provoking stuff; it does make the natural explicit and you begin to view social encounters through its prism. As much as I need help with the opposite sex I'm glad I didn't pursue it further and fall fully under its influence.

liah wrote: »

Hah, welcome to my world, the paranoia is all-consuming

In all honesty, although I understand your concern about being used, I think you are overestimating the size of the PUA community and the extent of their abilities. The chances of you being used by someone like this - meeting them and being charmed by them - are pretty slim. Besides, what are you going to do? You have to trust people at some point and whenever you do there's a chance they'll betray that trust; you won't get better at spotting people who will do that and getting over what they've done by avoiding it.

Sleepy

Another thought on this topic: isn't all social behaviour learned?

If I remember correctly, children learn social behaviours through observing those around them. The differences in what constitutes socially acceptable behaviour in different countries (e.g. amount of personal space) would certainly support this.

If we're to take those men who are naturally most successful with women and break what they do down into a simplified repeatable formula are we simply to think of PUA "game" as remedial classes for socially challenged men?

gargleblaster

Thanks for starting this thread liah, it has been most depressing, informative and helpful.

And thanks also to Waking-Dreams for his post. Very refreshing despite the depressing subject.

SugarHigh

Sleepy wrote: »

Another thought on this topic: isn't all social behaviour learned?

If I remember correctly, children learn social behaviours through observing those around them. The differences in what constitutes socially acceptable behaviour in different countries (e.g. amount of personal space) would certainly support this.

If we're to take those men who are naturally most successful with women and break what they do down into a simplified repeatable formula are we simply to think of PUA "game" as remedial classes for socially challenged men?

Another thought? Your point has already been made at least 20 times in this thread.

Wolfe Tone

gargleblaster wrote: »

Thanks for starting this thread liah, it has been most depressing, informative and helpful.

And thanks also to Waking-Dreams for his post. Very refreshing despite the depressing subject.

How is it depressing?

gargleblaster

It's only depressing for personal reasons which I'd rather not go into in such a public place, sorry. It was very informative and helped me to see the stuff as it is meant and not through the distorted lens I'd seen it through before, so it has been very good to read, despite the personal stuff. I really should have just edited that out actually.

It wasn't me!

Whatever about the ethics, it's just not in line with how I can honestly conduct myself. Any time I've been interested in someone, I've had friends telling me every damn thing under the sun. What to say, when to text or call, when not to, how to come across. For me, that's just not what I'm trying to do. It's not like me, and if I'm hoping someone is going to be attracted to me, why would I act like someone else? I don't flirt, I can't use any sort of line or ice breaker. I can't approach strangers because I've got nothing to be interested in. Have to actually know them somewhat before I can be attracted to them. When I'm attracted to someone, I'll try gauge whether they reciprocate, and then I'm up front about it. Maybe it's harder than having some sort of "system", but I wouldn't feel right doing anything else. That said, it's not exactly a roaring success of any sort either, but while the PUA stuff may have success on its side, I just couldn't do it.

SugarHigh

It wasn't me! wrote: »

if I'm hoping someone is going to be attracted to me, why would I act like someone else?

Fair enough I get what you mean by this but you maybe you could PUA and still be yourself.

Are you really getting your personality across with what you are doing now?
Maybe it feels like you are but I doubt it try and imagine how they are perceiving you. What info are you giving them to base their opinions of you on? I think it's really difficult to get a personalty across in a situation like that so whats the harm in using something from a book that you know will get you to the next stage? Where hopefully you can get your personality across. You said yourself you're not being given the chance to do this.

I do think you need to approach a girl a certain way in a nightclub to get anywhere, no matter what your personality is like. From the sounds of it you aren't doing much when you approach a girl so you are just coming across as mundane and forgettable which you might not be, but how is she supposed to see your personality if you aren't doing anything?

I'm not even saying you need to read PUA but you are definitely going to have to be me more proactive. It's kind of like sitting in the corner on your own and just expecting your personality to magically travel around the room for you.

This might seem like a silly example but try and see if you can communicate what song is playing in your head by tapping it out on a desk. It will feel to you as if you are playing the song well and it should be obvious to guess but I bet they won't because all they can hear is thud! thud! thud!. Essentially your brain is filling in the gaps of the song in your head but you aren't communicating whats going on in your head to other person so how can they possibly know what song it is?

I think this happens a lot with peoples personalities, if you aren't communicating anything how are they supposed to know what you are like?

I'm not sure if PUA can help people communicate this because I still haven't read it but if it at least gives you the confidence to not be a wallflower it will surely help.

It wasn't me!

I'm not meeting people in nightclubs. Hate the damn things. People I meet are through social situations outside clubs and the like. The odd time I do end up in a club, as I say, I have no interest in getting to know people, because I don't know anything about them. And no, the PUA stuff is not being myself, at all. It's a projection of something I'm absolutely not. I'm not a wallflower. When I'm interested in someone, I'll tell them, but I'm not going to read books on how to do this, and I'm not interested in them if I don't know anything about them, and I have no interest in going somewhere specifically to try and find someone to shag and hope they turn out to be worth having around in the first place. If being upfront with people isn't particularly successful, so be it, but that's me at least, and not an instruction manual.

donfers

liah wrote: »

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't worry too much about it, if anybody is doing it well then you won't have a clue they are engaging in it, if they are doing it badly and are transparent then no doubt you'll tell them where to go

personally i wouldn't bother with it but i don't see it any great problem with it, it's just a form of styling your communication, enough of that shoite goes on in the business/medical/showbiz/sporting worlds so it's no surprise that a specific form of communication that deems to make one successful in the dating sphere exists

there's an argument that if you are dumb enough to fall for it or participate in it then you should be responsible for what ensues

we all bull**** to a certain degree anyway and add a gloss to how we portray ourselves now and then, perhaps highlighting certain things and turning a blind eye to others...pua just takes this to a whole new level and is more specific and detailed....the only reason it is being discussed perhaps is because it targets a group that in my opinion seeks to exploit "being offended" or "oppressed by the patriarchy" quite a lot = educated young women, if have your wits about you, you'll see right through it, nothing to worry about, no worse than girls trying to get drinks out of guys by pretending to like them/want their company until the drink is drunk or targetting richer more famous guys (if any individual poster denies that they have ever done it, well that doesn't negate the fact that some women often do this) ....just the shameless politics of a night out

Scanlas The 2nd

I'm reading a book right now called "Get laid or Die Trying". It's like "The Game" but a different PUA wrote it. If you want to understand how manipulative a PUA can be or anyone fearing being manipulated by PUAs then read this book. He uses it for manipulation 100% in the beginning and makes no excuses, but as the years go by he says the manipulation has a corrosive effect on his relationships so he eventually decides to quit the manipulation and use it for good instead. Also probably the funniest book I can remember reading.

Anyway, even the most unethical PUAs (who are good at it), genuinely become more attractive to women. They have options with women, they are more dominant, more confident, funnier and they have better social skills and influencing abilities.

When women wear make-up, high heels, hair extensions etc the are purposefully deceiving people as to how attractive they are. They aren't genuinely more attractive when they do these things as opposed to PUAs who do genuinley become more attractive.

Elle Collins

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

...as opposed to PUAs who do genuinley become more attractive.

LOL - what a load of balls! :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Elle Collins wrote: »

LOL - what a load of balls! :rolleyes:

It is true up to a point, but only in the sense that saying don't pick your nose in front of a woman makes that man more attractive by simply not doing that.

Ultimately these things are like presentations on how to give presentations, you know the stuff you can do to improve public speaking skills. Be assertive, talk with confidence, don't talk to slow, or too fast, pause at particular points.

All these things will make you a better public speaker and thus make it easier for people to listen to your presentations. What they won't do is improve the substance of presentation.

Which is why all these techniques fall away when someone actually starts a relationship and finds that no one has told them how to be successful at that.

Scanlas The 2nd

Wicknight wrote: »

It is true up to a point, but only in the sense that saying don't pick your nose in front of a woman makes that man more attractive by simply not doing that.

Ultimately these things are like presentations on how to give presentations, you know the stuff you can do to improve public speaking skills. Be assertive, talk with confidence, don't talk to slow, or too fast, pause at particular points.

All these things will make you a better public speaker and thus make it easier for people to listen to your presentations. What they won't do is improve the substance of presentation.

Which is why all these techniques fall away when someone actually starts a relationship and finds that no one has told them how to be successful at that.

Very true if you said that 6-10 years ago. It's been figured out how to transform unattractive men into attractive men without all the canned material. The suff from the game is antiquated at this stage. The seduction community has moved on a lot since then. Most companies are teaching natural game now where students don't rely on rehearsed material. It takes time but you can fundamentally change a man from the inside to be naturally more attractive. Take away a man's base level of anxiety, withwhich he walks through the world, teach him how to flirt and how women work and he's good for life without anything canned.

K-9

leggo wrote: »

The concepts you refer to do not encourage men to see themselves as better than women. Just equal. Hence the 'needing confidence' part that is core to its existence.

And as for being viewed as the 'prize'? Surely you'd love to be seen as a prize by a boyfriend, i.e. Something worth fighting for. If you perceive that as being a sexual conquest...take that up with individuals and not the practise as a whole.

That's what I would have gotten from it. When you lack the confidence to chat up a girl you fancy or move to the next level you don't feel equal. Having being in a long term relationship I'd kind of forgotten the whole chatting up thing and some of this stuff helps.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Nah I definitely think it promotes the denigration of women. That's why it works.

PUA is clearly bad for women but good for men. Liah you keep claiming it's unhealthy but haven't really backed that up. From what I can gather these guys lives get improved by being able to pick up women.

Well I think the denigrating parts aren't great and I don't see the need for it. I think being confident and slagging is better than some of the stuff spouted by PUA's, the cocky and arrogant stuff.

SugarHigh

Elle Collins wrote: »

LOL - what a load of balls! :rolleyes:

If they don't become more attractive to women how do they get more than when they didn't do PUA?

Zombrex

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Very true if you said that 6-10 years ago. It's been figured out how to transform unattractive men into attractive men without all the canned material. The suff from the game is antiquated at this stage. The seduction community has moved on a lot since then. Most companies are teaching natural game now where students don't rely on rehearsed material. It takes time but you can fundamentally change a man from the inside to be naturally more attractive. Take away a man's base level of anxiety, withwhich he walks through the world, teach him how to flirt and how women work and he's good for life without anything canned.

I agree that you can teach this, how successful it will be I'm not sure.

I think if someone is interested in genuinely increasing confidence and assertiveness and decreasing anxiety they are better off with a councilor who will tackle the persons actual issues rather than a "seduction expert" who is merely teaching them how to fake it.

Scanlas The 2nd

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree that you can teach this, how successful it will be I'm not sure.

I think if someone is interested in genuinely increasing confidence and assertiveness and decreasing anxiety they are better off with a councilor who will tackle the persons actual issues rather than a "seduction expert" who is merely teaching them how to fake it.

They are taught how to actually get confidence by more effective means that I've ever come across from a councilor. They are taught meditation, presence, approaching again and again in a ridiculous fashion to be rejected on purpose, as well as numerous drills which really do work and transform an individual from the inside out. Councilors from what I can tell aren't practical and as realistic as the seduction experts ( The good ones, not the cowboys).

Now of course for the men with serious issues they should see a councillor and I think a good seduction expert would advise him to see one.

Zombrex

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

They are taught how to actually get confidence by more effective means that I've ever come across from a councilor. They are taught meditation, presence, approaching again and again in a ridiculous fashion to be rejected on purpose, as well as numerous drills which really do work and transform an individual from the inside out. Councilors from what I can tell aren't practical and as realistic as the seduction experts ( The good ones, not the cowboys).

Yes but the seduction experts do not tackle any underlying problems or issues. It is simply Do this and this will happen

I agree that having successful encounters will in itself boost confidence, but I'm not sure in a particularly healthy way. I can easily see someone believing that it is the technique is what is working rather than the person themselves.

I would be very interested how many of these men who got to these courses and have initial success are able to hold down long term relationships without all their issues with confidence disrupting these.

I some times feel that men with trouble talking to women think that if they just get a date or get a girlfriend everything will be fine, when in fact that is when the actual hard bit starts.

Thought to be honest I'm not an expert in what they do, so if some of them are more about helping the person's personality issues than just teaching them in a Do this this will happen sort of way, then that is better than nothing I guess.

Scanlas The 2nd

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the seduction experts do not tackle any underlying problems or issues. It is simply Do this and this will happen

I agree that having successful encounters will in itself boost confidence, but I'm not sure in a particularly healthy way. I can easily see someone believing that it is the technique is what is working rather than the person themselves.

I would be very interested how many of these men who got to these courses and have initial success are able to hold down long term relationships without all their issues with confidence disrupting these.

I some times feel that men with trouble talking to women think that if they just get a date or get a girlfriend everything will be fine, when in fact that is when the actual hard bit starts.

Thought to be honest I'm not an expert in what they do, so if some of them are more about helping the person's personality issues than just teaching them in a Do this this will happen sort of way, then that is better than nothing I guess.

I'd say it's like the gym, most lose the wil power after a while and give up and couldn't be bothered.

Some men that go to these courses are already very confident, they aren't good with women, some are already good with women but want to be better with women so they can get more attractive women. As far as I'm aware there is a wide varieity of men who take these courses. From CEOs, Doctors to your average bloke. I think Orlando Bloom to a bootcamp if I'm not mistaken. I know "the streets" got taught this stuff. They're in youtube being taught in a park in london.

Elle Collins

SugarHigh wrote: »

If they don't become more attractive to women how do they get more than when they didn't do PUA?

If it's true that they do I reckon that's explained by the abundance of dizzy women out there SugerHigh. Any woman with half a brain in her head who's been round the block a few times can spot these men coming before they arrive. I've had a few of these fools trying to run their 'game' on me. They're out-and-out saddos and have no idea how obvious they are. The 'seduction community' lol :rolleyes:

RedXIV

Elle Collins wrote: »

If it's true that they do I reckon that's explained by the abundance of dizzy women out there SugerHigh. Any woman with half a brain in her head who's been round the block a few times can spot these men coming before they arrive. I've had a few of these fools trying to run their 'game' on me. They're out-and-out saddos and have no idea how obvious they are. The 'seduction community' lol :rolleyes:

Actually its simple numbers.

If you previously would go out for a night and approach one girl all night, obviously your success rate isn't going to be very high. PUA teaches the confidence to approach girls more and more so obviously the odds increase to become more successful. See? simple numbers

Once again though I would like to say that anyone who's read the stuff isn't going to come out with the preplanned lines etc. The trick is getting to the stage that you're simply comfortable talking to women.

I think the generalisation is a bit harsh and inaccurate because once someone has gotten what they need out of it, they don't need the lines etc. they'll talk naturally. And if you think everyone who talks naturally to you is an "out and out saddo", well thats just a bit sad.

I'd like to point out once again I myself looked into this and I'm in a very happy relationship now so please don't judge us all as sleazeballs

Scanlas The 2nd

Elle Collins wrote: »

If it's true that they do I reckon that's explained by the abundance of dizzy women out there SugerHigh. Any woman with half a brain in her head who's been round the block a few times can spot these men coming before they arrive. I've had a few of these fools trying to run their 'game' on me. They're out-and-out saddos and have no idea how obvious they are. The 'seduction community' lol :rolleyes:

How do you know they learned stuff from the seduction community? If they did they were doing it wrong.

For the same reason you can't help but view these men as saddos is the reason you can't help to be attracted to a man having practiced and learned PUA properly. You can't help but be turned off by these men because they are sending you signals of low status and a lack of success with women. When a PUA does his stuff well he sends you signals that he is high status and that he has options with women. You can't help but be attracted to him. That's not to say he will definitely seduce you. I'm sure you know yourself that there are men you are attracted to that you wish you weren't but you can't help it. Leaning back when chatting you up is one small signal that says a man is high status and has success with women. Are you going to shout PUA everytime a man leans back.

Elle Collins

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm sure you know yourself that there are men you are attracted to that you wish you weren't but you can't help it.

This is exactly the type of delusional thinking that PUA philosophy teaches men, and it is exactly what I find objectionable, so thank you for the helpful example.

The honest truth Scanlas is that I have never in my life wished I was not attracted to a man I was attracted to, nor have I ever, after the fact, even for a single moment regretted any attraction I've ever had or anything that came of it. PUA, to me, (and to any savvy woman, I believe) is simply laughable.

Scanlas The 2nd

Elle Collins wrote: »

This is exactly the type of delusional thinking that PUA philosophy teaches men, and it is exactly what I find objectionable, so thank you for the helpful example.

The honest truth Scanlas is that I have never in my life wished I was not attracted to a man I was attracted to, nor have I ever, after the fact, even for a single moment regretted any attraction I've ever had or anything that came of it. PUA, to me, (and to any savvy woman, I believe) is simply laughable.

Well at least it gave you a laugh if nothing else.

Elle Collins

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Well at least it gave you a laugh, there's one good thing you got out of it.

Well, there are different types of laughs as you know Scanlas, and some are more amusing than others..

Elle Collins

Lol, what was wrong with saying there was one good thing I got out of it?

Scanlas The 2nd

Elle Collins wrote: »

Lol, what was wrong with saying there was one good thing I got out of it?

It sounded like you used it yourself. I wouldn't be that cruel to you.

leggo

Elle Collins wrote: »

If it's true that they do I reckon that's explained by the abundance of dizzy women out there SugerHigh. Any woman with half a brain in her head who's been round the block a few times can spot these men coming before they arrive. I've had a few of these fools trying to run their 'game' on me. They're out-and-out saddos and have no idea how obvious they are. The 'seduction community' lol :rolleyes:

With respect Elle, that post sounds more defensive than anything. Giving that the only position people attack from, naturally, is a defensive one.

I get why women wouldn't like the idea of pick-up with perceptions out there as they are. If said perceptions were true, I wouldn't blame them. But every single woman I've ever sat down with and talked through it has either appreciated it, or in the case of generally feminist types who begrudge men having any kind of differing opinion, quietly remained within their prejudices because they knew that opening their mouth would open them up to the possibility of being proven wrong.

If you want to have a constructive debate on the matter, I'd be happy to as long as you provide some sensible points as to why you feel this way. Otherwise, please exit the conversation via option B because calling an entire group of people who engage in this for a variety of reasons 'saddos' is little more than blatant trolling. Unfortunately, pick-up is an easy target so generalisations like this often go unpunished.

Zombrex

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'd say it's like the gym, most lose the wil power after a while and give up and couldn't be bothered.

Some men that go to these courses are already very confident, they aren't good with women, some are already good with women but want to be better with women so they can get more attractive women.

That is sort of my point. To a professional councilor helping the man "get" women would not be considered the goal, as this is rather short sighted in terms of developing healthy romantic relationships.

The fact that so many men seem to focus simply on the "getting" part would re-enforce my point about the idea that all they have to do is get them to start going out with them and everything will be clear sailing from there.

This is rather naive. The real issues in a relationship manifest themselves further down the line. Pick up artists do nothing for men trying to handle these.

Zombrex

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How do you know they learned stuff from the seduction community? If they did they were doing it wrong.

For the same reason you can't help but view these men as saddos is the reason you can't help to be attracted to a man having practiced and learned PUA properly. You can't help but be turned off by these men because they are sending you signals of low status and a lack of success with women. When a PUA does his stuff well he sends you signals that he is high status and that he has options with women. You can't help but be attracted to him.

That works on the assumption that this can be faked as well as genuine confidence and charisma.

This I think is naive. There is a huge difference between someone who is acting in a particular way based on how someone has explained to them they should act, and someone who is acting a particular way because that is the natural way they feel to act.

By definition these guys are not naturally acting like this, that is why they go to pick up artists in the first place. It shouldn't be surprising that women say they can spot the difference pretty easily.

leggo

Wicknight wrote: »

It shouldn't be surprising that women say they can spot the difference pretty easily.

I'll tell you why women say they can spot the difference easily: because they're not going to say "Oh no, I'm gullible and can be talked into bed."

(Of course, they wouldn't be gullible IF they were talked into bed, by the letter of PUA law. But generally women who are like "That would never work on me" don't have enough of a grasp of the facts to realise this)

I will agree with you, though, that confidence, value etc aren't easily faked. A bad teacher, in my opinion, will teach guys signs of confidence and tell them to 'fake it til they make it'. What ends up happening, more often than not, is the guy eventually keeps getting caught out at some stage and the poor teacher uses the excuse "You can lead a horse to water..."

A much better method of building a guy's confidence is giving him the information he needs, go through basic confidence-building techniques then have him watch you do it yourself, so he sees your words in action and has a comparison to pit his knowledge against. He will then be more confident within his next interaction because he'll have a better idea of how to handle it. You haven't completely over-hauled his confidence (such a feat is impossible without the guy first being willing himself and then success itself) but you've injected him with confidence for this one situation that will hopefully bear results and build his overall confidence further. This will, ideally, breed more success and so on and so forth.

Scanlas The 2nd

Wicknight wrote: »

That works on the assumption that this can be faked as well as genuine confidence and charisma.

This I think is naive. There is a huge difference between someone who is acting in a particular way based on how someone has explained to them they should act, and someone who is acting a particular way because that is the natural way they feel to act.

By definition these guys are not naturally acting like this, that is why they go to pick up artists in the first place. It shouldn't be surprising that women say they can spot the difference pretty easily.

I'd agree with you that the way "game" used to be taught that it dealt with superficial suface level problems and didn't transform an individual from the inside as much at it should. But that was in the days of "The Game". There has been many advancements since then. Saying that it still worked incredible well when done proplerly even on the women who would say "that would never work on me" which is practically every woman. It actually works on intelligent and socially savy women the best. No doubt there are still people teaching the old methods but the new stuff out now is better for everyone, men and women. Although when you say that would never work on me it doesn't make sense as there is so much too it. For example leaning back works on everyone. When people lean in it is creepy. So there is one thing that works on everyone and the list could go on and on.

Most people aren't genuine in the first place. I'm a more well rounded healthy individual now than I ever was as a result of finding <SNIP>

There is no assumption of faking confidence and charisma. Learning Pick Up Artistry I'd say is 80% transforming yourself on the inside to bring out your natural confidence, charisma and masculinity that EVERY man has inside somewhere. The other 20% I'd say is learning knowledge, tactics, techniques, female psychology etc. When you can bring out your natural confidence and charisma you send attractive signals to women. There's no deceipt there because the signals represent the truth.

Have a look at the company <SNIP> and you'll see how positive and ethical their philosophy is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

leggo wrote: »

He will then be more confident within his next interaction because he'll have a better idea of how to handle it. You haven't completely over-hauled his confidence (such a feat is impossible without the guy first being willing himself and then success itself) but you've injected him with confidence for this one situation that will hopefully bear results and build his overall confidence further. This will, ideally, breed more success and so on and so forth.

But that is the thing though. Genuine confident people are not confident that the techniques they are doing will "work". The are confident in an entirely different context, they are happy with themselves, they are happy about who they are, they are not trying to trick anyone into doing anything. They do not view things in the framework of things working or not.

The confidence that someone will not laugh at your technique and tell you to piss off is not the same as the confidence that people who are happy with themselves have naturally.

The former is trying to fake the latter. It is watching what people who are genuinely confident do and say, and then trying to emulate it without the underlying genuine confidence.

This is, to put it mildly, utterly missing the point. This is the hardest thing to try and explain to someone who thinks everyone is playing the game they way they do.

I'm sure some women confuse the two, and end up being attracted to someone who is faking it, but the biological attraction is for the person who is genuine confident with themselves, not with the person who is confident on a superficial level, confident merely that his technique will work. One is a facsimile of the other.

This is why a lot of people say the best way to play the game is to stop trying to play the game.

RedXIV

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the thing though. Genuine confident people are not confident that the techniques they are doing will "work". The are confident in an entirely different context, they are happy with themselves, they are happy about who they are, they are not trying to trick anyone into doing anything. They do not view things in the framework of things working or not.

The confidence that someone will not laugh at your technique and tell you to piss off is not the same as the confidence that people who are happy with themselves have naturally.

The former is trying to fake the latter. It is watching what people who are genuinely confident do and say, and then trying to emulate it without the underlying genuine confidence.

This is, to put it mildly, utterly missing the point. This is the hardest thing to try and explain to someone who thinks everyone is playing the game they way they do.

I'm sure some women confuse the two, and end up being attracted to someone who is faking it, but the biological attraction is for the person who is genuine confident with themselves, not with the person who is confident on a superficial level, confident merely that his technique will work. One is a facsimile of the other.

This is why a lot of people say the best way to play the game is to stop trying to play the game.

I see what you're saying, honestly I do, but, respectfully, I'd disagree. at least to an extent.

From your post, a confident person is just that, confident. But confidence doesn't just be. A person grows in confidence, every time you do something and it works, you get more confident.

Allow me to use a metaphor. At home, my 11month old daughter is learning to walk. I know she can do it, I've seen her take steps, she can walk while holding on to things and she has pretty good balance. All she's lacking is confidence. But every time she walks up and down holding on to something, every time we encourage her to take a step, it's instilling confidence. until you get to the stage we are all at now where we just take it for granted.

Its the same thing. If you are good at getting on with people, you will become more confident which will make you happier and so on. However on the same token, if a confident person were to get rejected constantly over a lengthly period of time, confidence will begin to erode and happiness will decline.

I do agree there are certain levels of this i.e. the person who fakes confidence and the person who IS confidence but instead of thinking of them as two different types of person, I see them as two different stages of the SAME person. doesn't matter if you learn it naturally through a nurturing childhood or through a book after years. the point is, you need to branch out of your comfort zone for a while to be confident at ANYTHING

Zombrex

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'd agree with you that the way "game" used to be taught that it dealt with superficial suface level problems and didn't transform an individual from the inside as much at it should. But that was in the days of "The Game". There has been many advancements since then. Saying that it still worked incredible well when done proplerly even on the women who would say "that would never work on me" which is practically every woman. It actually works on intelligent and socially savy women the best.

I guess you and me have different notions of what we mean by "works".

If "works" means the man got chatting to women that he eventually managed to sleep with, then I've no doubt it worked.

If though "works" means the man dealt with his underlying confident issues (confidence in the context I discussed with leggo, not merely confidence that his technique will "work"), became happy with himself and his situation, I'm doubtful.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Most people aren't genuine in the first place. I'm a more well rounded healthy individual now than I ever was as a result of finding <SNIP>

There is no assumption of faking confidence and charisma. Learning Pick Up Artistry I'd say is 80% transforming yourself on the inside to bring out your natural confidence, charisma and masculinity that EVERY man has inside somewhere. The other 20% I'd say is learning knowledge, tactics, techniques, female psychology etc. When you can bring out your natural confidence and charisma you send attractive signals to women. There's no deceipt there because the signals represent the truth.

Naturally confident people don't view interactions in such terms though. They do not view interactions in terms of a game people as a series of moves which may or may not work.

So it is hard to see how these companies are genuinely making people more confident, other than confident purely in the context that they think such techniques will actually end up having the women sleep with them.

For example, as you say, leaning back should work on anyone, and I'm not disputing the logic in the techniques. But someone who is naturally confident does not know that they shouldn't lean into someone. They just don't lean into someone. If the person has to be told to not lean into someone they are not naturally confident by definition.

They are doing an overly affectionate gesture to a stranger because they have self confidence issues. Over affection is a sign of various things, such as frustration and a desire to be comforted. All the things you would expect from someone who is not particularly successful with women.

But the crux of the matter is that you do not deal with that by simply saying "Don't lean in". You just end up with someone who is still desiring affection but who is now telling himself doing lean in.

It may "work" in the sense that the woman is not put off by a sign of over affection (a turn off for various evolutionary reasons), but has it really worked in the wide sense of the underlying reason why the person thought to do that in the first place?

If these systems were really working it is doubtful that you would have to explain to someone not to do this, the simply wouldn't do this naturally.

This is what I mean by naturally confident people. It is not the case that these people know what to do. It is that what to do is defined by them in the first place. A happy confident person doesn't lean in not because he knows he shouldn't do this, but because he has no desire to do this in the first place, he has no tendency to be overly affectionate to someone he barely knows.

Now I'm just using this as example, again I really don't know exactly what techniques these companies use. But from what I've read here they don't seem to be doing much other than telling people without much confidence or self-esteem how to fake acting like you have confidence and self-esteem, rather than dealing with the actual issues of why they don't have confidence or self-esteem.

Zombrex

RedXIV wrote: »

I see what you're saying, honestly I do, but, respectfully, I'd disagree. at least to an extent.

From your post, a confident person is just that, confident. But confidence doesn't just be. A person grows in confidence, every time you do something and it works, you get more confident.

I agree, but this is why I made the distinction between the different confidences we are discussing here.

There is certainly a confidence that these techniques work (what ever way we want to define that, though it seems to be "resulted in sexual encounter"), and that can grow the more a person tries them and gets positive feed back.

I would think that this though is miles away from what we mean when someone says that a person is a confident person. That comes from a genuine ease with oneself, a genuine respect for oneself, a genuine happiness.

This produces a person who acts in a manner that, for evolutionary reasons, is not off putting to women. Not because he knows what he is doing. He just does what he does, it is not off putting to women because of hundreds of thousands of years evolution has worked out what is or isn't a danger sign in terms of child raring.

So I'm all for people gaining confidence, but confidence in a meaningful manner, not simply confidence that various techniques, copied from confident people, work.

This is why I think a person going to a councilor is infinitely better than someone going to a pick up artist.

RedXIV

Wicknight wrote: »

This is why I think a person going to a councilor is infinitely better than someone going to a pick up artist.

Ah ok, we're getting somewhere in a GENERAL sense, if someone needed more confidence in their lives, I might be inclined to agree with you, however, alot of people looking into PUA are lacking confidence in this one particular area.

Likewise, if I want to become more confident about my ability to handle myself in a fight, I'll learn to fight with fighting coaches as opposed to going to a councilor.

He just does what he does

This is the bit I disagree with. nobody is born or imbued with specific skills, 99.9% will be the result of nurturing and education. The reason why someone is competent in social settings is that they've LEARNED to be that way. it may be unconscious learning, done as a child, all the better. Thats why you'll find guys with sisters or going to mixed schools better with women in life as they've grown up talking to women so they find it easier to approach them.

Zombrex

RedXIV wrote: »

Ah ok, we're getting somewhere in a GENERAL sense, if someone needed more confidence in their lives, I might be inclined to agree with you, however, alot of people looking into PUA are lacking confidence in this one particular area.

It isn't one particular area though. it is a huge area that encompasses a large amount of human psychology.

I think this is another harmful myth in relation to men/women interaction, that people who are bad at it just don't know what they are doing.

In truth such interactions should come naturally. It is not that people who are good at it do know what they are doing. It is that they don't have the underlying emotional issues that are causing their natural interactions to go hay wire.

See the posts above about leaning in for an example of what I mean. It is not as simply as someone knowing to not lean in and someone not knowing they shouldn't lean in. In reality the person who doesn't doesn't have a clue that they aren't doing this. They simply aren't doing it because they don't have an overly anxious desire for effection from the woman.

Some people have difficulty with men/women interaction because a whole set of emotional issues have muddled up their instincts in terms of how they would act naturally around a woman. This cannot be properly dealt with by simply telling the person what they are doing wrong and what they should be doing instead. If the person didn't have these issues they wouldn't need to be told to do anything the first place, it would come naturally to them.

RedXIV wrote: »

This is the bit I disagree with. nobody is born or imbued with specific skills, 99.9% will be the result of nurturing and education.

These aren't skill, that is my point. This again is the most dangerous myth from things like this. A confidence person isn't a confidence person because he has techniques and skills. Humans naturally mate with each other, we do not need to learn this. It is genetic. It is natural.

What is happening with some people is that emotional damage in their earlier life is manifesting itself in how they interact with others, and this is being picked up upon by the women they are interacting with.

The women are being put off by this because it is a manifestation of emotional damage. They have evolved to do this is, to find such behavior unattractive.

The base line is not the guy who can't talke to women, and then anyone more successful than him has some how learnt something new. It is the other way around. The baseline is the guy who can do all this naturally.

RedXIV wrote: »

The reason why someone is competent in social settings is that they've LEARNED to be that way.

It is the other way around. The reason some people are inept at social settings is that they have been deviated from the normal behavior through emotional damage that women have evolved to pick upon and to find unattractive. It is not that some guys know the secret to attracting women, what would be the evolutionary purpose of that? The techniques being secret serves no evolutionary purpose. That is just a social myth to make people feel better about themselves, that it isn't that there is something wrong with them, it is just that they didn't have the opportunity to gain this secret knowledge.

In reality it is that some guys display behavior that is deeply unattractive to women. The only true way to deal with this is to deal with the emotional damage, the underlying reasons why. Anything else is just window dressing.

RedXIV

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't one particular area though. it is a huge area that encompasses a large amount of human psychology.

I kinda agree here, the art of social interaction involves huge levels of variance however I still think we're talking about one aspect of social interaction which is attracting a member of the opposite sex

I think this is another harmful myth in relation to men/women interaction, that people who are bad at it just don't know what they are doing.

I disagree here. the point is that the DON'T know how they should be conducting themselves. surely if they did, they wouldn't have an issue?

In truth such interactions should come naturally.

Totally disagree with this. Naturally is as good as saying "born with the ability". This is simply not true. You learn to speak as a child, you learn not to shout and to hit. the truth is the vast majority of communication skills are learned as a toddler and the rest come with time and experience. Nobody is born with the innate knowledge of how exactly to conduct themselves in a conversation.

It is not that people who are good at it do know what they are doing. It is that they don't have the underlying emotional issues that are causing their natural interactions to go hay wire.

I agree that people who are comfortable doing it may not be aware but I put this down to simply having learned so long ago. Not that there is an emotional issue in the way. Thats like saying you should have no problems in a fight against anyone simply because you're ancestors fought to exist. EVOLUTION favours the strong etc. But from someone who's been kicked around the place for years in various tournaments, trust me, everything is learned, nobody has walked in off the street with no experience and won anything.

See the posts above about leaning in for an example of what I mean. It is not as simply as someone knowing to not lean in and someone not knowing they shouldn't lean in. In reality the person who doesn't doesn't have a clue that they aren't doing this. They simply aren't doing it because they don't have an overly anxious desire for effection from the woman.

As I said above, these are things people learn. People learn what makes people comfortable and what doesn't. It doesn't take long, just a piece of experience. They are doing it because they know it works because they've been doing it for as long as they remember. To them its as natural as walking, something they also learned.

Some people have difficulty with men/women interaction because a whole set of emotional issues have muddled up their instincts in terms of how they would act naturally around a woman.

This is true for SOME people, not all, and certainly not ALL of the people who look into PUA.

This cannot be properly dealt with by simply telling the person what they are doing wrong and what they should be doing instead.

I agree with this for the people with actual emotional difficulties but for some people, this is EXACTLY what they need.

If the person didn't have these issues they wouldn't need to be told to do anything the first place, it would come naturally to them.

Once again, I'm against the point of "naturally" as it implies that they would be born with the knowledge, but I agree that these issues would make it harder for people

These aren't skill, that is my point.

I beg to differ. We've done courses on it in work known as "soft skills"

This again is the most dangerous myth from things like this. A confidence person isn't a confidence person because he has techniques and skills.

Once again, I think this this is incorrect, surely a confident person is going to in possession of these skills? why be confident if you can't interact?

Humans naturally mate with each other, we do not need to learn this. It is genetic. It is natural.

So thats why gay people can't flirt?!

Yes we do mate with each other but like every other species, there is an alpha male the women are looking for, and only effort can lead someone to become an "alpha" male. Just because the effort happened when you were alot younger doesn't discount the effort

What is happening with some people is that emotional damage in their earlier life is manifesting itself in how they interact with others, and this is being picked up upon by the women they are interacting with.

Again, this is affecting SOME people, not all. Others are shy, some are brash, some need very minor guidence and some need to be completely redirected in their approach. the point is though, you can't tar everyone with the same brush

The women are being put off by this because it is a manifestation of emotional damage. They have evolved to do this is, to find such behavior unattractive.

This i agree with, but its not that hard to reprogram behaviour.

The base line is not the guy who can't talke to women, and then anyone more successful than him has some how learnt something new. It is the other way around. The baseline is the guy who can do all this naturally.

I still think you've gotten this the other away around. social skills are learned, not blocked. At least, not in cases without emotional distress.

It is the other way around. The reason some people are inept at social settings is that they have been deviated from the normal behavior through emotional damage that women have evolved to pick upon.

No, its because they haven't learned how to conduct themselves better. I really think you're being too free with the idea that anyone involved with this is emotionally damaged

The only true way to deal with this is to deal with the emotional damage. Anything else is just window dressing.

But its not always emotional damage thats the problem, I'd guess a large percentage of the time, its just lack of understanding and skills