The Ethics of PUA

Scanlas The 2nd

Wicknight wrote: »

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.



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.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Simply giving a man the techniques is merely treating the symptoms. I think as a result of the PUA in the media people get the impression thats all that the PUA companies do for their clients. The major companies work on a man from the inside and from the outside with skills, techniques etc. I think to ignore either aspect is putting a man at a severe disadvantage.

I think you are a making some assumptions that are incorrect. I'd say nearly 100% of men aren't confident enough ( if they want to be consistently attracting the most attractive women), and that's not because they have any serious issues. It's just natural not to be really confident where you can walk up to a group of stunning women surrounded by intimidating men and not care emotionally one way or another how it goes. The most important aspect that is taught is to be outcome independent whilst having intent. Just because you can't do that doesn't mean you have serious issues for which you need a counsellor. I doubt very much a counsellor would even know where to start to give someone that level of confidence. There are cases of course where a man should see a counsellor, say he was abused as a child or is suffering from depression. Although apparently you be amazed how many people can snap out of depression when they get a glimpse of how good they can be with women.

I think you are assuming that if you are confident that you are then going to be successful with women. A confident man with zero social skills is going to struggle with women. Also, even naturally confident men with good social skills can give out unattractive signals that a PUA instructor could help them with. They could have simply formed bad habits which need to be tweeked or they could benefit from having a better understanding of social dynamics, female pyschology etc.

I think the most effective way to make a man successful with women is to focus primarily on his confidence, acceptance of himself, not caring what anyone thinks while being responive to what people do and think, happy whatever happens and his mindset first, but also you need to focus on external things as inner confidence won't translate to give a man all the attractive traits on it's own. External advice like body language and how to flirt and how women work are skills that confidence alone won't necessarily give a man.

Overall I'd agree with a lot of what you said, especially the part about you shouldn't need to know the interaction will go well to be comfortable approaching.

Zombrex

RedXIV wrote: »

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

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think you are a making some assumptions that are incorrect. I'd say nearly 100% of men aren't confident enough ( if they want to be consistently attracting the most attractive women), and that's not because they have any serious issues.

You are both making the same point, but you are both in my opinion missing the wood for the trees.

What we consider successful social skills are not arbitrary. Women don't just randomly find some things attractive and other things not attractive. They have evolved to find these things attractive and unattractive, and there are reasons why this is.

The reason why some things are quite unattractive to women are because they are outward signs of internal issues. I didn't mean to imply that these have to be serious mental issues, it could be as simple as overly desiring affection, which a lot of people do.

Scanlas mentioned that PUA will try to teach their clients to not care that much about the outcome of an interaction. This is a very sensible suggestion, women will find someone over eager a turn off, as they will find someone who seems desperate that things go well a turn off.

But their is a reason for this, again it is not random. It is because these things hint at emotional issues, lack of self-esteem, desperation for acceptance, desire for a relationship rather than the particular person.

As far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, but PUA techniques don't do anything to tackle these issues. In reality a perfectly emotionally healthy person would not care that much if an encounter with a girl doesn't go well, because they will tend to be already pretty happy.

For those who aren't I'm sure you can get around this by trying to teach mental tricks not produce the sort of unattractive behavior, but again these are just tricks. If the person was perfectly happy and content with themselves I would wonder why they are using PUA in the first place.

You can say to someone when talking to women don't seem over eager. But the real way to tackle such an issue is to try and get them happier in their lives, so they aren't so over eager in the first place.

Scanlas The 2nd

Wicknight wrote: »

You are both making the same point, but you are both in my opinion missing the wood for the trees.

What we consider successful social skills are not arbitrary. Women don't just randomly find some things attractive and other things not attractive. They have evolved to find these things attractive and unattractive, and there are reasons why this is.

The reason why some things are quite unattractive to women are because they are outward signs of internal issues. I didn't mean to imply that these have to be serious mental issues, it could be as simple as overly desiring affection, which a lot of people do.

Scanlas mentioned that PUA will try to teach their clients to not care that much about the outcome of an interaction. This is a very sensible suggestion, women will find someone over eager a turn off, as they will find someone who seems desperate that things go well a turn off.

But their is a reason for this, again it is not random. It is because these things hint at emotional issues, lack of self-esteem, desperation for acceptance, desire for a relationship rather than the particular person.

As far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, but PUA techniques don't do anything to tackle these issues. In reality a perfectly emotionally healthy person would not care that much if an encounter with a girl doesn't go well, because they will tend to be already pretty happy.

For those who aren't I'm sure you can get around this by trying to teach mental tricks not produce the sort of unattractive behavior, but again these are just tricks. If the person was perfectly happy and content with themselves I would wonder why they are using PUA in the first place.

You can say to someone when talking to women don't seem over eager. But the real way to tackle such an issue is to try and get them happier in their lives, so they aren't so over eager in the first place.

PUA companies do teach men to be happy and content with themselves. They often package it as "inner game". I've heard over and over again the advice from PUAs about being happy and content with yourself and having a life outside of women that thoroughly fullfills you. They give advice on living in alignment with your values, personal boundaries, the ego, meditation etc. There is loads of stuff on it as they realise that being happy and content on the inside is hugely important.

For most people including the perfectly happy people approaching beautiful women is scary, no amount of counselling sessions or self help books is going to change that. The only thing that will change that is doing it despite your fear again and again. That is how character is formed. After a while the fear lessens until it's not a problem as your natural instincts realise that approaching a beautiful woman does not deserve the fear it assigned it. PUA helps hugely in this area other people who are doing it like you can give support and motivation as well as the belief that in the end it is worthwhile going through the fear and embarrasment.

On the subject of already being perfectly happy and content with yourself and still learning PUA:

Just because you are happy and content with yourself does not mean you are good with women or can't improve with women. As an extreme example Stephen Hawkins is perfectly happy as far as I'm aware but he would struggle attracting women and there are non disabled happy people too who would struggle with women. Happy and content people can still be enthusiastic for the pleasures of life such as food, hobbies and beautiful women. The happy and content man may be able to attract women but maybe he wants to attract more beautiful women with other characteristics he likes but can't. Maybe he can attract the very women he wants but he can only do it in certain situations such as at night in pubs/clubs and wants to stay in at night and chat up these women during the day but can't do it. This is where PUA can help the happy and content man.

Elle Collins

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

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

We've obviously got differing opinions on a range of issues Scanlas! I'd honestly never receive a comment like that as a cruelty.

As far as this conversation has developed since I was last near a computer, there really is very little I could add to Wicknight's opinions, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

One thing I must say though, from a woman's perspective, is that the act of a man involving himself in PUA philosophy is in and of itself deeply unattractive to me. I think some men are really getting the wrong end of the stick here, because a man having to resort to that (for me certainly and for many women I would imagine) is a very potent woman repellent!

Virgil°

Elle Collins wrote: »

We've obviously got differing opinions on a range of issues Scanlas! I'd honestly never receive a comment like that as a cruelty.

As far as this conversation has developed since I was last near a computer, there really is very little I could add to Wicknight's opinions, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

One thing I must say though, from a woman's perspective, is that the act of a man involving himself in PUA philosophy is in and of itself deeply unattractive to me. I think some men are really getting the wrong end of the stick here, because a man having to resort to that (for me certainly and for many women I would imagine) is a very potent woman repellent!

For guys that wouldnt normally have the social skills for whatever reason(plenty have been mentioned) to attract someone like you ,who finds PUA so repulsive, what are their options? The way I see it, providing you could spot someone who has practised PUA stuff they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

leggo

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.

Sorry I've just seen this.

Your entire argument (a lot of which has merit and I agree with, by the way) is based upon a flawed principal, though: the simple existence of 'confidence' and happiness in oneself irrespective of circumstances.

Circumstances, in fact, are directly responsible for confidence or lack thereof. From a position of weakness, especially.

Example: a man's wife leaves him tomorrow for his best friend and tells him that the friend can satisfy her in ways that he never could. In the same day, his boss of 25 years turns around to him and says that he is incompetent at his (previously comfortable) job and sacked with immediate effect. On his way home from work, a 17-year old jumps on him and beats the **** out of him.

By your logic, a confident person would be completely unfazed by the above because of this mythical, unmoving happiness within themselves.

In reality, what led them to be confident to begin with was the culmination of said circumstances and the ability within himself to cultivate a life that encompassed these.

What I will give you is that a naturally confident person is more likely to bounce back from these setbacks than crumble. That is an integral part of what *I* teach/taught: confidence irrespective of circumstances.

This doesn't mean that the above happenings won't dent a person. Such an eventuality is as unlikely as creating one 'routine' that will instantly chat-up any and every woman. In other words, it's impossible to create a perfect utopia of peace within oneself (no matter what the likes of Eckhard Tolle may promote). A happy balance, however, is achievable by everyone.

What it relies upon is taking a person short of confidence, building the circumstances in their lives to a point that allows them this perspective, then removing their reliance on circumstances from a position of strength to a more secure confidence 'base', so to speak. This allows them only the power of coping, which is an enviable power if used correctly.

Like I said, a lot of the rest of your argument is solid. But it's reliance on a principle that just doesn't stand-up is to its detriment.

Elle Collins

Virgil° wrote: »

For guys that wouldnt normally have the social skills for whatever reason(plenty have been mentioned) to attract someone like you ,who finds PUA so repulsive, what are their options? The way I see it, providing you could spot someone who has practised PUA stuff they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

There are three billion women on the planet Virgil. Men are hardly about to run out of options!

Scanlas The 2nd

Elle Collins wrote: »

We've obviously got differing opinions on a range of issues Scanlas! I'd honestly never receive a comment like that as a cruelty.

As far as this conversation has developed since I was last near a computer, there really is very little I could add to Wicknight's opinions, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

One thing I must say though, from a woman's perspective, is that the act of a man involving himself in PUA philosophy is in and of itself deeply unattractive to me. I think some men are really getting the wrong end of the stick here, because a man having to resort to that (for me certainly and for many women I would imagine) is a very potent woman repellent!

I've responded to this already. How would you suggest a man who wants to get good with women goes about it? Would you prefer if you could keep them in their place where they belong as rejects? What's your solution?

PUA theory predicts that you would be repelled on hearing that a man seeks help to become better with women. It implies to you that he is bad with women which is unattractive.

You are attracted to men who have options with beautiful women. It's the way you are built just like men can't help but be attracted smooth skin, healthy hair and a nice body. PUA gives men options with women and other characteristics that women are hardwired to be attracted to. So in summary it works whether you view it as a repellent or not.

The worst ( I stress the worst) of PUA which could be viewed as unethical is no more unethical than a woman deceiving men about the flawless nature of her skin with makeup, the quality of her hair with numerous hair products and extensions or her height and figure with push up bras and highheels.

Virgil°

Elle Collins wrote: »

There are three billion women on the planet Virgil. Men are hardly about to run out of options!

Would i be wrong assume then that you wouldn't advocate your own opinion of men who have used PUA to other women?

Even then what we have been talking about is, in the majority, men who can't hold conversation,or don't understand social cues to whatever extent. For them the vast vast majority of the aforementioned 3 billion women are simply out of their grasp.
Leaving a high chance they'll never enter a relationship.

Elle Collins

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The worst ( I stress the worst) of PUA which could be viewed as unethical is no more unethical than a woman deceiving men about the flawless nature of her skin with makeup, the quality of her hair with numerous hair products and extensions or her height and figure with push up bras and highheels.

Sorry but this is nonsense Scanlas, I've read PUA books and some of them describe women and men's potential interaction with women in ways that made me almost physically ill. There is nothing involved in putting on make-up and heels that denigrates the worth of any individual man or of men generally.

(I disagree with other points you raised btw but this is the one that pissed me off the most )

Scanlas The 2nd

Elle Collins wrote: »

Sorry but this is nonsense Scanlas, I've read PUA books and some of them describe women and men's potential interaction with women in ways that made me almost physically ill. There is nothing involved in putting on make-up and heels that denigrates the worth of any individual man or of men generally.

(I disagree with other points you raised btw but this is the one that pissed me off the most )

Describe the specific things that make you feel physically ill? I may or may not agree with you but I can't comment on it if I don't know the specifics.

Elle Collins

Virgil° wrote: »

Even then what we have been talking about is, in the majority, men who can't hold conversation,or don't understand social cues to whatever extent.

There are a very wide range of counselling/therapy options available to people who cannot manage to hold a conversation or grasp social cues. Making meat out of the opposite gender need not come into it. Also (and here is something that goes right over a lot of mens heads) PUA unethically targets vulnerable men.

Elle Collins

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Describe the specific things that make you feel physically ill? I may or may not agree with you but I can't comment on it if I don't know the specifics.

I'll tell you tomorrow.

Virgil°

Elle Collins wrote: »

There are a very wide range of counselling/therapy options available to people who cannot manage to hold a conversation or grasp social cues.

It's still the same thing though essentially. They are taught in counseling tricks, tips and behaviours that they would otherwise learn from PUA or from copying a person they know. What difference does it make where they learn it from?
Not to mention that counseling is very expensive.

The point being made is that we are all taught to copy desirable behavior. Most of us do it unconsciously and add it to the repertoire of stuff that makes us more attractive. These guys need a leg up because for whatever reason they didn't take to it as easily as most.

Making meat out of the opposite gender need not come into it. Also (and here is something that goes right over a lot of mens heads) PUA unethically targets vulnerable men.

I agree in part. PUA does target vulnerable men. It's made to pander to them because its what they need. This doesn't make it unethical. I don't deny there will be people out there who will use it to take advantage of these men or that there are parts of PUA that are OTT but it doesn't invalidate all the material.

On the subject of making meat out of the opposite gender, yes it does teach this to a degree. But making an object out of a person isn't in itself wrong.
The earlier example was that of makeup vs PUA material. They are the same only one is more subtle and unspoken.

For example: a PUA using man is told "You act this way and such and such a kind of woman is likely to react more favorably towards you".

is no different than:

"You wear makeup and high heels and dress up and such and such a kind of guy is likely to react more favorably towards you".

The only difference is that the first is taught where the second is naturally learned in most cases.

gargleblaster

It seems there are different camps of men using this. Some are using it to be able to communicate with women, in the hopes of finding a relationship. Some, however, are using it to learn things like the "7-hour rule".

It seems to me that if men want it to be understood that they aren't just looking to be able to trick women into having ONS's with them, that maybe they should stop using the term "pick up artists". The name says it all, doesn't it? "Pick up artists" by definition aren't interested in improving their confidence and communication skills. They are interested in picking up women.

Having a ONS is fine, if they are up front that that's all it is. Sadly, most women aren't into that, and as a result, men end up lying to and manipulating them. (And no, wearing heels and make up is not the same as pretending you're interested in someone in order to **** them.)

Men who aren't interested in playing women should find a new name, because the term PUA is offensive on its face IMO.

Virgil°

gargleblaster wrote: »

And no, wearing heels and make up is not the same as pretending you're interested in someone in order to **** them.)

Thats fair enough. I don't remember anyone saying that though.

Scanlas The 2nd

gargleblaster wrote: »

It seems there are different camps of men using this. Some are using it to be able to communicate with women, in the hopes of finding a relationship. Some, however, are using it to learn things like the "7-hour rule".

It seems to me that if men want it to be understood that they aren't just looking to be able to trick women into having ONS's with them, that maybe they should stop using the term "pick up artists". The name says it all, doesn't it? "Pick up artists" by definition aren't interested in improving their confidence and communication skills. They are interested in picking up women.

Having a ONS is fine, if they are up front that that's all it is. Sadly, most women aren't into that, and as a result, men end up lying to and manipulating them. (And no, wearing heels and make up is not the same as pretending you're interested in someone in order to **** them.)

Men who aren't interested in playing women should find a new name, because the term PUA is offensive on its face IMO.

Firstly I'd like to point out that the "7 hour rule" is a load of rubbish. You can consistently bed women in less than two hours. You seem to be under the illusion that women don't like casual sex. They do (most of them anyway in my opinion) so long as it is with a man who is "sexworthy", a boyfriend is not necessarily "sexworthy" as he gives her other things too. They just hate it with men who are "provider" type non dominant sexy men. When you learn to bring out you natural masucline instincts and how to turn a woman intensely there is no need to trick her into bed. If anything she'll be trying to trick you into bed.

Elle Collins

Virgil° wrote: »

It's still the same thing though essentially. They are taught in counseling tricks, tips and behaviours that they would otherwise learn from PUA or from copying a person they know. What difference does it make where they learn it from?

Counselling has nothing to do with tips or tricks. It has to do with getting to the bottom of deep-rooted issues that are the cause of lack of a self-confidence/worth/esteem issues. Sorry to be blunt but it's just a whole different world from gleaning some tricks especially tailored to get your hole.

Virgil° wrote: »

Not to mention that counseling is very expensive.

It can be, depending on where you go, but it's also often free or provided on a small donation basis through family resource centres etc.

Virgil° wrote: »

I agree in part. PUA does target vulnerable men. It's made to pander to them because its what they need.

Well I certainly wouldn't agree it's what they need. As for what they are lead to believe they need, now that is another thing altogether. That's nothing but the classic of all merchandising tactics. You do realise people make money out of this don't you? A lot of money.

Virgil° wrote: »

This doesn't make it unethical. I don't deny there will be people out there who will use it to take advantage of these men or that there are parts of PUA that are OTT but it doesn't invalidate all the material.

I find the basic premise of PUA (which is to make objects out of women) odious. For me that does invalidate all the material.

Sometimes during a conversation someone will say something that makes you realise you will never ever reach a consensus because your two opinions are diametrically opposed. This was that comment for me:

Virgil° wrote: »

On the subject of making meat out of the opposite gender, yes it does teach this to a degree. But making an object out of a person isn't in itself wrong.

Elle Collins

gargleblaster wrote: »

It seems to me that if men want it to be understood that they aren't just looking to be able to trick women into having ONS's with them, that maybe they should stop using the term "pick up artists". The name says it all, doesn't it?

Indeed it does, and any woman with more than a couple of neurons firing around in her head knows it.

Elle Collins

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Describe the specific things that make you feel physically ill? I may or may not agree with you but I can't comment on it if I don't know the specifics.

I found the tone of the books I read to be all in the same vein with differences only in the matter of degree. On the more obnoxious end of the scale were comments like: "these honey's have had it all their own way for far too long, follow these tips and you'll be able to fcuk any honey you want, it'll be like picking cherries from a tree".

A lot of it was in the vein of 'you can screw this, bend it this way, that way, do what you like blah blah blah bullsh!t' that to be honest with you, I find difficult to type, never mind to consider that there are God knows how many tens/hundreds of thousands of men going around the place brainwashed with this bullsh!t.

RedXIV

Elle Collins wrote: »

Counselling has nothing to do with tips or tricks. It has to do with getting to the bottom of deep-rooted issues that are the cause of lack of a self-confidence/worth/esteem issues. Sorry to be blunt but it's just a whole different world from gleaning some tricks especially tailored to get your hole.

I apologise for sounding like a broken record but these "tricks" you are talking about really are the male equivalent of women wearing heels, makeup and doing their hair. Both are designed to make you more attractive. Simple as. The difference here is learning how to attract the opposite gender. Men are visual creatures so women work on appearance, women are more discerning about the person and therefore men learn how to present themselves in the most positive light.

Well I certainly wouldn't agree it's what they need. As for what they are lead to believe they need, now that is another thing altogether. That's nothing but the classic of all merchandising tactics. You do realise people make money out of this don't you? A lot of money.

You're right, they don't NEED this. But they want it. I went to college with a bunch of programmers and we went out one night and they were terrified of talking to women. Not because of deep seated emotional issues as previously declared but simply because we've all experience rejection, and the embarrassment involved with that. So why shouldn't they learn how to get past this so they can approach women, why do you think they shouldn't gain this knowledge that will give them the chance to forge a relationship?

I find the basic premise of PUA (which is to make objects out of women) odious. For me that does invalidate all the material.

Thats fine. I understand this is what women are unhappy with. But likewise, its a seller's market. 99% of male female interactions in a nightclub are initiated by the guy, girls will get approached by interested parties more times in one night than most guys will in their lives. And for a nervous guy to approach a woman who can casually tell him to F off, that's harsh. thats something he may take to heart and will refuse to approach another woman for weeks, maybe months. When you're the one getting approached, its easier to consider each individual on their merits, but for the one doing the approaching, the odds are highly stacked against you so it makes sense to put up a buffer against a rejection. easiest way is try not to give a damn about the person until you discover they will at least talk to you.

I would really liken to finish up with that for the people who keep saying that this stuff should be replaced with a councilor for the deep emotional issues obviously present in any one who'd look into this. Please. Please consider that there might not be no issues. I had relationships before PUA, during PUA and after PUA. I promise I'm not mentally, emotionally or even physically unstable. All I wanted to know was how to become better at talking to girls because getting rejected a lot sucks. I'd heard the "be yourself" advice before trotted out by female friends and I can honestly say, its terrible advice to give to someone looking for advice

Elle Collins

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I've responded to this already. How would you suggest a man who wants to get good with women goes about it? Would you prefer if you could keep them in their place where they belong as rejects? What's your solution?

I meant to respond to this already Scanlas. Firstly, I find very little in this world more saddening then human lonliness and I would never condemn anyone to it. The idea of a group of men being kept "in their place where they belong as rejects", well to be honest that was an awful line to read. I just find it an awful thought to think. It certainly doesn't belong to me.

What I am saying is that I believe we can find love and sex in this world without being so disrespectful as to treat each other as less than human, and it is to be treated as less than human when you are referred to with the casual contempt of something that can be picked from a tree.

Elle Collins

RedXIV wrote: »

I apologise for sounding like a broken record but these "tricks" you are talking about really are the male equivalent of women wearing heels, makeup and doing their hair. Both are designed to make you more attractive. Simple as.

It is not "simple as", not in my view anyway RedXIV, and no amount of comparing the two is going to make them seem any more alike than they seem to me, which is not at all. One is designed to attract while causing no detriment - the other is designed to attract based on the detriment it causes. Seems to me, far from equivalents, this is polar opposites we're talking about here.

Of course you're going to ask me to define the damage I'm talking about: I'm talking about practices I've read of, including "breaking down" women (a practice anyone versed in PUA will recognise) whereby women are sent many forms of subtle clues that they are not worth the time of day, and more obvious ones, like having backs turned to them to being point-blank conversationally ignored, all designed to break down a womans self-worth and shatter her confidence, the goal being that she will fall down with her legs open in order to have said-male restore her damaged confidence. It just boggles my mind that I'm expected to sit here and read of that type of behaviour being compared to my putting on lipstick on my way out the door.

RedXIV wrote: »

So why shouldn't they learn how to get past this so they can approach women, why do you think they shouldn't gain this knowledge that will give them the chance to forge a relationship?

You are talking as though there was something positive here to be gained. I don't see the brainwashing of PUA as positive in the slightest, to women or men.

Have another read of these lines you wrote please because there's a point I want to make about them now in a minute:

RedXIV wrote: »

All I wanted to know was how to become better at talking to girls because getting rejected a lot sucks.

RedXIV wrote: »

When you're the one getting approached, its easier to consider each individual on their merits, but for the one doing the approaching, the odds are highly stacked against you so it makes sense to put up a buffer against a rejection. easiest way is try not to give a damn about the person until you discover they will at least talk to you.

These two attitudes juxtaposed exemplify everything I find objectionable about PUA RedXIV, because the first is the view of an obviously nice guy who just wants a bit more luck with meeting women, and the second is the consequence of PUA techniques, which are schooling him to remove himself from the concept of giving "a damn about the person" in the name of offering him "a buffer against rejection". What it says to me is that any decent young man can be trained to view women as "targets", "cherries" or any other type of crap not worth 'giving a damn about'. I have to ask you, in the deepest part of yourself, are you honestly 100% comfortable with this?

Scanlas The 2nd

Elle Collins wrote: »

I found the tone of the books I read to be all in the same vein with differences only in the matter of degree. On the more obnoxious end of the scale were comments like: "these honey's have had it all their own way for far too long, follow these tips and you'll be able to fcuk any honey you want, it'll be like picking cherries from a tree".

A lot of it was in the vein of 'you can screw this, bend it this way, that way, do what you like blah blah blah bullsh!t' that to be honest with you, I find difficult to type, never mind to consider that there are God knows how many tens/hundreds of thousands of men going around the place brainwashed with this bullsh!t.

I haven't read anything like that but if there is stuff out there with a genuine tone like the one above then I agree with you and people should stay away from that stuff, but if you look at the stuff the leading companies are producing it is nothing like what you wrote above. It is positve and ethical in my opinion.

Scanlas The 2nd

Elle Collins wrote: »

I meant to respond to this already Scanlas. Firstly, I find very little in this world more saddening then human lonliness and I would never condemn anyone to it. The idea of a group of men being kept "in their place where they belong as rejects", well to be honest that was an awful line to read. I just find it an awful thought to think. It certainly doesn't belong to me.

What I am saying is that I believe we can find love and sex in this world without being so disrespectful as to treat each other as less than human, and it is to be treated as less than human when you are referred to with the casual contempt of something that can be picked from a tree.

I agree contempt for anyone is a horrible thing and people should find other sources to learn from. Men do far better with women when they see them as humans with their own unique feelings, experiences and outlook on the world all things equal. But who is saying these things you speak of?

As for the shattering of self worth on women by PUAs you speak of above, that's not what it is about.We all give out indicators of interest and disinterest all the time. It is part the game whether you acknoledge a game exists or not. Women give indicators of disinterest to men far more often than men. Blowing your nose in the presence of the opposite sex is an indicator of disinterest. Now if someone's self worth is shattered because someone blew their nose then they need to see psychiatrist. Women use backturns all the time too, it's all part of a human's array of social skills, it's completely natural. A PUA learns how to do these things well. If a PUA chats up a women well then the woman will have a brilliant time and thouroughl enjoy herself. You are blowing this all out of proportion.

RedXIV

Elle Collins wrote: »

It is not "simple as", not in my view anyway RedXIV, and no amount of comparing the two is going to make them seem any more alike than they seem to me, which is not at all. One is designed to attract while causing no detriment - the other is designed to attract based on the detriment it causes. Seems to me, far from equivalents, this is polar opposites we're talking about here.

Of course you're going to ask me to define the damage I'm talking about: I'm talking about practices I've read of, including "breaking down" women (a practice anyone versed in PUA will recognise) whereby women are sent many forms of subtle clues that they are not worth the time of day, and more obvious ones, like having backs turned to them to being point-blank conversationally ignored, all designed to break down a womans self-worth and shatter her confidence, the goal being that she will fall down with her legs open in order to have said-male restore her damaged confidence. It just boggles my mind that I'm expected to sit here and read of that type of behaviour being compared to my putting on lipstick on my way out the door.

My apologies, I didn't read which ones you were referring to, I was talking about the same ones I referred to before geared towards self promotion and changing yourself rather than breaking down the other person. I've said before I don't condone that part.

You are talking as though there was something positive here to be gained. I don't see the brainwashing of PUA as positive in the slightest, to women or men.

With regard to my words above, I DO think there is good to be gleaned from PUA, as I said, I've experience it myself. I'm not brainwashed, but I do advocate this information as it has, as far as I'm concerned, proved its worth.

Again this is with the self directed exercises in mind.

These two attitudes juxtaposed exemplify everything I find objectionable about PUA RedXIV, because the first is the view of an obviously nice guy who just wants a bit more luck with meeting women, and the second is the consequence of PUA techniques, which are schooling him to remove himself from the concept of giving "a damn about the person" in the name of offering him "a buffer against rejection". What it says to me is that any decent young man can be trained to view women as "targets", "cherries" or any other type of crap not worth 'giving a damn about'. I have to ask you, in the deepest part of yourself, are you honestly 100% comfortable with this?

Honestly? I 100% am comfortable with this. This makes sense to me. If I were single and going out to a nightclub to meet somebody, I'd be fairly confident that if I were to approach 10 women, 5 would ignore me, 2 would be nasty about it, 2 would be polite and move away and if I'm lucky, the last one might be interested in a conversation. Thats my experience of going out in several towns and cities, not just in Ireland. I'm sure you're a lovely person and would talk to anybody who approached you on a night out, as does every other girl claim when asked this, but the statistics prove you are the exception.

I'm not blaming women for this, God knows they'll have their own trouble dealing with idiots approaching them drunk or just plain horrible. But when you're up against those kind of odds, it makes sense to prepare yourself for it. IF the girl you approach consents to talk to you, then by all means, remove the buffer, but why throw up the idea that "this girl is a decent person" when 90% of the women won't respond in kind?

Elle Collins

RedXIV wrote: »

I'm sure you're a lovely person and would talk to anybody who approached you on a night out, as does every other girl claim when asked this, but the statistics prove you are the exception.

Don't be so sure about how receptive I'd be, lol. I have a bit of banter with people who are looking for a laugh, but people who are looking for their hole and go the disrespectful way about it always wish they hadn't gone looking for it off me.

RedXIV wrote: »

I'm not blaming women for this, God knows they'll have their own trouble dealing with idiots approaching them drunk or just plain horrible.

That's exactly the problem RedXIV, as women we have to deal with this as a major major ongoing issue. I would say, for me anyway, it is right up there with the level of rejection you're talking about men routinely getting from women. Maybe someone should write us a manual on how to get fcukin rid of them.

Anyway I guess this is getting old, doesn't look like there's going to be much agreement going on around here. I have to say it's nice to see from reading your posts some men at least use this crap with relationships in mind.

Elle Collins

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

A PUA learns how to do these things well. If a PUA chats up a women well then the woman will have a brilliant time and thouroughl enjoy herself. You are blowing this all out of proportion.

I don't believe I am blowing this out of proportion, and if what you say above was true I wouldn't have told the last man who fancied himself as a pick up artist where to go, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole sorry business! (Sorry I couldn't resist that last line )

RedXIV

Elle Collins wrote: »

Don't be so sure about how receptive I'd be, lol. I have a bit of banter with people who are looking for a laugh, but people who are looking for their hole and go the disrespectful way about it always wish they hadn't gone looking for it off me.

Ah well thats to be expected. I'm hardly expecting you or indeed anyone to put up with someone being an arsehole and looking to get laid with it.

That's exactly the problem RedXIV, as women we have to deal with this as a major major ongoing issue. I would say, for me anyway, it is right up there with the level of rejection you're talking about men routinely getting from women. Maybe someone should write us a manual on how to get fcukin rid of them.

Thats easy use a shotgun

Seriously though, I know how that can be an utter pain. I've been out with female friends plenty of times who genuinely don't want to be rude but some guys just will not let it go if the girl is being polite. Both genders have their issues it appears

Anyway I guess this is getting old, doesn't look like there's going to be much agreement going on around here. I have to say it's nice to see from reading your posts some men at least use this crap with relationships in mind.

If you even go away with that in mind, I'm happier. As long as I don't have another person who believes PUA completely ruins men

gargleblaster

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Firstly I'd like to point out that the "7 hour rule" is a load of rubbish. You can consistently bed women in less than two hours. You seem to be under the illusion that women don't like casual sex. They do (most of them anyway in my opinion) so long as it is with a man who is "sexworthy", a boyfriend is not necessarily "sexworthy" as he gives her other things too. They just hate it with men who are "provider" type non dominant sexy men. When you learn to bring out you natural masucline instincts and how to turn a woman intensely there is no need to trick her into bed. If anything she'll be trying to trick you into bed.

You couldn't be more wrong about your inference that I'm under some delusion that women don't like ONSs.

My problem is with the pick up "artists" that pretend they aren't only interested in ONSs. I wonder what the percentage breaks down to - how many men use these techniques to be better communicators and how many use it only to become better at manipulating women.

Scanlas The 2nd

gargleblaster wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong about your inference that I'm under some delusion that women don't like ONSs.

My problem is with the pick up "artists" that pretend they aren't only interested in ONSs. I wonder what the percentage breaks down to - how many men use these techniques to be better communicators and how many use it only to become better at manipulating women.

Who are pick up artists who pretend they aren't interested in one night stands? Where are you getting this information?

I think most learn this stuff to become better with women and to be able to choose the woman they want whether it is just sex or a relationship rather than just accepting whatever woman will fall into your lap. Also it's just simply really fun to learn this stuff and to be able to approach any women you want with amusing yourself being your primary source of fun. Anyone who approaches women just for an outcome of some sort other than fun are missing out. Approaching women is the most fun I've ever had that I can remember.

gargleblaster

I'm not giving out names. I know this happens from personal experience. I got burned by someone before I'd even heard of this crap. Once I did hear about it, I realized what game he was playing. (I'm one of those women without two brain cells to rub together apparently.)

Also the plural of anecdote is not data.

I wonder if anyone has tallied up all of the sites and forums about this stuff and divided them up into those which are designed to help men to be more confident and those which are tailored more for the kind that people here seem to want to just discount as not mattering at all and not being worthy of discussion as if they aren't a part of the PUA movement, though they obviously very much are. I am curious what the breakdown would be.

RedXIV

gargleblaster wrote: »

I'm not giving out names. I know this happens from personal experience. I got burned by someone before I'd even heard of this crap. Once I did hear about it, I realized what game he was playing. (I'm one of those women without two brain cells to rub together apparently.)

Also the plural of anecdote is not data.

I wonder if anyone has tallied up all of the sites and forums about this stuff and divided them up into those which are designed to help men to be more confident and those which are tailored more for the kind that people here seem to want to just discount as not mattering at all and not being worthy of discussion as if they aren't a part of the PUA movement, though they obviously very much are. I am curious what the breakdown would be.

I don't think anyone has said that PUA doesn't have a shady side to it to be fair. Personally I'm just trying to advocate the positive aspects that this stuff has highlighted and my grief is with people who here the term PUA and immediately discount the person as emotionally unstable or a sleazeball.

gargleblaster

I understand that, and I'm glad there are men here doing that, because before I read this thread I honestly thought any man involved in this stuff was a slezeball. Now I realize that some men are just really shy or are very risk-averse, so I see the good side of it now.

However it does really bother me, the whole concept of 'pick up artists'. Having sex for fun is great and I don't begrudge anyone who is interested in bettering their game to make their lives more enjoyable. It's just the manipulation aspect of it that bothers me, and the fact that I know men are out there messing with women's heads to get what they want. It's as bad as gold diggers but at least rich men can spot them a mile off.

gargleblaster

After giving this some more thought I'm starting to wonder if it's possible that many of the women who are attracted to some of these tactics (e.g. negs), aren't attracted because of some basic biology, but because of past mistreatment.

Many (most?) psychologists say that people who come from abusive backgrounds tend to try to work out their issues with their partners if they haven't dealt with them before getting involved in a relationship.

I was feeling pretty bad for falling for this kind of thing, because as has been said savvy women most likely don't. But now I'm wondering if it's not necessarily intelligent women who are less likely to fall for it, but more a case that emotionally healthy women are less susceptible to it.

Elle Collins

Elle Collins wrote: »

Counselling has nothing to do with tips or tricks. It has to do with getting to the bottom of deep-rooted issues that are the cause of lack of a self-confidence/worth/esteem issues. Sorry to be blunt but it's just a whole different world from gleaning some tricks especially tailored to get your hole.

I agree with you about counselling. I've done it for a variety of issues going back decades, and can honestly say that it works for many things. I've also "done" the PUA scene (David DeAngelo, Ross Jeffries, Seduction Alt etc).
Each have their place in helping people to overcome the limitations that they have placed on themselves.

But I would note that neither are quick fixes. Just as you have to attend & participate in many counselling sessions, so too you have to commit to practicing/implementing the methods provided through the PUA process. I would also mention that I still use a wide variety of calming/confidence techniques I learned from the PUA scene in my daily life.

Well I certainly wouldn't agree it's what they need. As for what they are lead to believe they need, now that is another thing altogether. That's nothing but the classic of all merchandising tactics. You do realise people make money out of this don't you? A lot of money.

And you will find that they (the PUA "experts") make no attempt to hide the fact. It IS a money making business. They have skills which they can teach and people desire that service. Just as I, as a teacher in China, get paid more than the average Chinese citizen simply because I have the skills and have a white face. Everybody knows the score.

I find the basic premise of PUA (which is to make objects out of women) odious. For me that does invalidate all the material.

This is a common misunderstanding. The PUA scene is huge. Just as in Psychology or counselling there are extremists in their viewpoints, so too there consists those PUA groups who do seek to objectify or diminish the value of women. (Consider that the PUA scene grew in scope from the Internet, and lets face it, everything that operates at any level on the net, gathers its own share of wacko's)

But then there are many others which don't. The "good" material out there seeks to remove the "pedestal" concept. Basically that women are wonderful/perfect creatures that deserve to be worshipped. Now, this is something that guys do themselves, along with a liberal helping from the media. But it is a serious problem to boys/men who have issues with 1) approaching women 2) actually talking to them, 3) moving beyond small talk and lastly 4) dating.

Let me give you an example. As part of my PUA training, they had me seek to remove certain language from my habits. Try and Can't were highlighted as terrible words to use since they introduce failure right from the beginning before you even attempt the action. There is a phrase that has stuck with me all this time. "Language structures consciousness". And it certainly is true with me.

I don't think though that you really understand the pressures that many people (since PUA has been used by women in the past) have to face in doing what so many others consider normal behavior. You have respect for counselling and yet, seem to fall short of actually understanding the emotional baggage that people have, and what can/must force them to actively seek help.

Of course you're going to ask me to define the damage I'm talking about: I'm talking about practices I've read of, including "breaking down" women (a practice anyone versed in PUA will recognise) whereby women are sent many forms of subtle clues that they are not worth the time of day, and more obvious ones, like having backs turned to them to being point-blank conversationally ignored, all designed to break down a womans self-worth and shatter her confidence, the goal being that she will fall down with her legs open in order to have said-male restore her damaged confidence. It just boggles my mind that I'm expected to sit here and read of that type of behaviour being compared to my putting on lipstick on my way out the door.

Why make that comparison? Why not make the reference to the women that go out in groups on ladies nights with the intention of leading men on, or actually demolishing their approaches in public?

Just as there are those that will seek out the more nasty side of PUA, there are also those women that will seek to hurt men for some hurt they received previously, or for some imagined slight. Or perhaps they are working out their anger for a host of personal issues that would be better off worked out in counselling.

You seem to almost ignore the realities of dating. That people are people, and there will always be those that are nasty. Some men will use terrible material just to get laid, but then so too will women. Ther difference here is that men tend to have to learn such techniques later in life whereas some women learn them whilst growing up.

By the way, I know the material you're talking about. I even know how to use it. But I never have. Curious to know why? It doesn't suit my personality, and doesn't fit with my values. PUA is not about changing someone. Its just offering people the choice of tools to improve their lives. Alas some people pick the worst tools, but then thats no different from most areas of life.

And its probably worth noticing that the people that use the nastier PUA (or nastier naturally learned skills) are quite easy to spot as those you wouldn't hang out with anyway... Unfortuently some people love to be victims.

You are talking as though there was something positive here to be gained. I don't see the brainwashing of PUA as positive in the slightest, to women or men.

I've read back pages and i've yet to see any proof of brainwashing...

As for something positive, I see a lot more positives from giving people the skills to have a healthy life than leaving them in the dark. Seriously, have you ever had a really bad rejection in approaching a member of the opposite sex? Or a breakup that you just felt that you could have prevented? PUA provides the tools to help mitigate the chances of such. But they're still tools, and choice remains with the user.
________

In regards to women feeling angry or annoyed if told that their guy had learned PUA... its rubbish. I have told plenty of women where I learned to talk to women. They tend to understand if you explain where you came from, and then ask them their experience of normal dating. If offered the difference between conventional dating and a guy that speaks in a language they actually understand... the choice is obvious.

Why are skills that make women feel good and give men confidence so bad? Or is it perhaps that you feel that you are losing control over the experience, and then that's more of a personal issue...

Scanlas The 2nd

gargleblaster wrote: »

After giving this some more thought I'm starting to wonder if it's possible that many of the women who are attracted to some of these tactics (e.g. negs), aren't attracted because of some basic biology, but because of past mistreatment.

Many (most?) psychologists say that people who come from abusive backgrounds tend to try to work out their issues with their partners if they haven't dealt with them before getting involved in a relationship.

I was feeling pretty bad for falling for this kind of thing, because as has been said savvy women most likely don't. But now I'm wondering if it's not necessarily intelligent women who are less likely to fall for it, but more a case that emotionally healthy women are less susceptible to it.

Women are attracted to PUA for the most part because it teaches men to be attractive and to flip the attraction switches in women's brains, and it works on intelligent emotionally healthy women. Women are attracted to dominance, they are attracted to high status behaviours, body language, facial expressions, rhythms of speech, tone and pitch in the voice. They are attracted to men who are at peace and calm and who lack anxiety. They are attracted to men who do not care what people think of them. PUA teaches you to transform yourself so you bring out these characteristics in yourself whilst having a conscious understanding of social dynamics and female pyschology. Why would an intelligent emotionally healthy woman not be attracted to these things?

As for negs, they are rarely taught these days as there are far more effective things that are taught now. But I don't see the problem with them nevertheless. The purpose of a neg is to demonstrate to a beautiful woman implicitly that you aren't won over by her on her looks alone. These are simple things that women do all the time. As I have previoulsy mentioned, blowing your nose in the company of a beautiful woman is a neg.

OutlawPete

My views on this are simple

I thing there is nothing 'wrong' with either sex using PUA techniques, as long as they are not negative. By negative I mean that you are not manipulating the person by saying something to make a person feel bad about themselves. Other than that, I think fire away.

If you tell some girl you manage your own business and own 10% of the Playboy mansion, and she believes this and sleeps with you because of this, then that's her lookout, she shouldn't be going around sleeping with people just because they manage their own business and own 10% of the Playboy mansion.

I see nothing wrong with a guy acting more fascinated in what a girl says, that he actually is, or trying hard to make more eye contact than he is comfortable with, or being far more chatty than is natural for him to be etc etc. Or even the whole thing about wearing/having something that girls are likely to ask them questions about.

Reason being, this is just something some guys do to get girls attention and to try and get them a little more interested in them, to pay them more attention so that they can be in their company for longer. Sure, if you are acting like someone you are not, then if you do manage to get into a relationship with that person, it is unlikely to last as they have fallen for someone you are not.

However, girls also have ways to make guys more interested in them, to get guys to pay them more attention and to spend more time in their company and that is to dress in ways that will achieve this very things. When a girl wears high heels, push up bra, make-up etc - these are all things which just as fake as some of the PUA techniques (which I referred to). Not all women are wearing high heels, push-up bras and make-up to get guys attention, but some are.

Just as a guy can fake some things about himself to get girls to be more interested in him, girls too can also fake things about themselves to try and get guys to be more interested in them and so, I see nothing wrong with PUA for that reason and to repeat, that is only if they are not used to make someone feel bad about themselves, neither sex should do that, obviously.

gargleblaster

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Women are attracted to PUA for the most part because it teaches men to be attractive and to flip the attraction switches in women's brains, and it works on intelligent emotionally healthy women. Women are attracted to dominance, they are attracted to high status behaviours, body language, facial expressions, rhythms of speech, tone and pitch in the voice. They are attracted to men who are at peace and calm and who lack anxiety. They are attracted to men who do not care what people think of them. PUA teaches you to transform yourself so you bring out these characteristics in yourself whilst having a conscious understanding of social dynamics and female pyschology. Why would an intelligent emotionally healthy woman not be attracted to these things?

As for negs, they are rarely taught these days as there are far more effective things that are taught now. But I don't see the problem with them nevertheless. The purpose of a neg is to demonstrate to a beautiful woman implicitly that you aren't won over by her on her looks alone. These are simple things that women do all the time. As I have previoulsy mentioned, blowing your nose in the company of a beautiful woman is a neg.

I think your post includes a lot of generalizations that while true for many women, are not true for all. It is true that some women find dominance and high status turn ons, but many do not (I'm definitely in the latter group).

When I talk about emotionally unhealthy women I'm talking about those that, based on what I've read and heard from psychologists, would be most responsive to negs. By the way, is there any evidence that blowing your nose would be considered a neg by PUAs? It seems like a fairly random thing to be considered a neg. The examples I read about yesterday were far more direct and personal.

Someone brought up earlier in the discussion the idea that a woman could be attracted to someone she didn't want to be attracted to, as evidence that this stuff works. I would say that in my situation that was definitely the case, and I would chalk it up to my abusive childhood. This person used negs and I hated that I had feelings for him at all but it was undeniable that I did. It really did mess me up.

I do think it would be productive to start an offshoot with a more appropriate name if one is only involved in this to improve communication skills. If you want to just have lots of sex without getting into relationships then the name fits quite well and as long as the men are honest about their intent I have no problem at all with it.

My problem is with men who would enter into MLTRs without telling each of the women he's involved with exactly what kind of relationship they are in (this is the kind of person I had the extreme misforunte to become involved with).

I also have huge problems with things like LMR being defined as nothing but a nuisance to be overcome, and that any woman who gets to the point of being alone and involved in heavy petting definitely wants to have sex with a man, and only needs to be gently -- what term would you use? convinced? persuaded? coerced? -- to go further than she wants to when she puts up that resistance.

Scanlas The 2nd

gargleblaster wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Women are attracted to PUA for the most part because it teaches men to be attractive and to flip the attraction switches in women's brains, and it works on intelligent emotionally healthy women. Women are attracted to dominance, they are attracted to high status behaviours, body language, facial expressions, rhythms of speech, tone and pitch in the voice. They are attracted to men who are at peace and calm and who lack anxiety. They are attracted to men who do not care what people think of them. PUA teaches you to transform yourself so you bring out these characteristics in yourself whilst having a conscious understanding of social dynamics and female pyschology. Why would an intelligent emotionally healthy woman not be attracted to these things?

As for negs, they are rarely taught these days as there are far more effective things that are taught now. But I don't see the problem with them nevertheless. The purpose of a neg is to demonstrate to a beautiful woman implicitly that you aren't won over by her on her looks alone. These are simple things that women do all the time. As I have previoulsy mentioned, blowing your nose in the company of a beautiful woman is a neg.

I think your post includes a lot of generalizations that while true for many women, are not true for all. It is true that some women find dominance and high status turn ons, but many do not (I'm definitely in the latter group).

When I talk about emotionally unhealthy women I'm talking about those that, based on what I've read and heard from psychologists, would be most responsive to negs. By the way, is there any evidence that blowing your nose would be considered a neg by PUAs? It seems like a fairly random thing to be considered a neg. The examples I read about yesterday were far more direct and personal.

Someone brought up earlier in the discussion the idea that a woman could be attracted to someone she didn't want to be attracted to, as evidence that this stuff works. I would say that in my situation that was definitely the case, and I would chalk it up to my abusive childhood. This person used negs and I hated that I had feelings for him at all but it was undeniable that I did. It really did mess me up.

I do think it would be productive to start an offshoot with a more appropriate name if one is only involved in this to improve communication skills. If you want to just have lots of sex without getting into relationships then the name fits quite well and as long as the men are honest about their intent I have no problem at all with it.

My problem is with men who would enter into MLTRs without telling each of the women he's involved with exactly what kind of relationship they are in (this is the kind of person I had the extreme misforunte to become involved with).

I also have huge problems with things like LMR being defined as nothing but a nuisance to be overcome, and that any woman who gets to the point of being alone and involved in heavy petting definitely wants to have sex with a man, and only needs to be gently -- what term would you use? convinced? persuaded? coerced? -- to go further than she wants to when she puts up that resistance.

Any action or words that implicitly demonstrate you are not trying to impress a beautiful woman is a neg and ironically impresses her. You don't blow your nose when trying to impress.

seenitall

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Any action or words that implicitly demonstrate you are not trying to impress a beautiful woman is a neg and ironically impresses her. You don't blow your nose when trying to impress.

LOL, what in the world are you talking about?! I'm no more impressed or unimpressed by anyone blowing a nose in my company, than I am with myself doing the same in theirs. I.e. not at all. I'd much rather a person blows their nose than sit there trying to talk to me with boogies down their face!

leggo

It's unfortunate that some people (mainly anti-PUA) here still don't understand the concept of a neg despite it being explained already multiple times. Understandable, since this debate is now the length of a decent novel and it could have been skimmed over, but unfortunate.

A neg is essentially a way of asserting yourself in a position where you are being looked down on. Of evening the odds, so to speak.

Many women will argue that potentially insulting someone should never be used to assert yourself. But how would you react, for example, if I walked up to you, cold, and laughed in your face while calling you a minger? I imagine you wouldn't be too concerned about my feelings.

The problem is that women don't realise that they send out equivalent signals through their own actions. Though they tend to be of the more devious, subtle kind...the feeling they give men (confident or not) is the same as telling them to "**** off".

What PUA teaches men is to understand that these signals are a DEFENCE mechanism. Earlier it was spoken about that women have to put up with being approached constantly by annoying drunks. This is how they, subconsciously, deal with it.

So there has to be a middle ground: a quick reaction that a man can give to assert himself from the pack, let the woman know she can't talk down to him but at the same time keep the interaction positive (since telling her to **** off likely wouldn't work). A neg is one way of doing this. It's not designed to shatter her confidence. The desired reaction from her is LAUGHTER. That's all.

Hopefully that can clear it up somewhat for our new batch of PUA bashers.

seenitall

sooo... what are you saying? That I should laugh if someone blows a nose in my company? Now I really don't get it! (Perhaps Scanlas will best answer this, as he is the one who figures I'd be impressed by a guy blowing his nose...)

(Oh, and further to his post, I don't consider myself a particularly beautiful woman, but let's say for argument's sake! :pac:)

killeoinisback

seenitall wrote: »

sooo... what are you saying? That I should laugh if someone blows a nose in my company? Now I really don't get it! (Perhaps Scanlas will best answer this, as he is the one who figures I'd be impressed by a guy blowing his nose...)

(Oh, and further to his post, I don't consider myself a particularly beautiful woman, but let's say for argument's sake! :pac:)

It's been a while since I've been in "the game" but i'll try and clear up a bit of confusion.

Blowing one's nose in front of a girl is not a neg. I think the poster is confusing a neg with being "alpha male". Negging a girl is as you mention in your post giving her a direct personal insult. The aim of this in simple terms is to bring her down to your level and make her feel slightly bad about herself. Probably the most heavily used neg is "OMG your roots are showing". Try to make it innocent sounding as naturally if a girl feels your being a prick she'll walk away. A statement like that can work wonders as long as it appears to be an innocent comment.

The Game teaches people to never blow their nose in front of a girl. You blow your nose it makes you look sick and hense a girl will be turned off as you are not a healty breeding mate for her offspring.

With regard to ethics I do believe that some PUA's go too far. I have heard stories of PUA's having a particular game for girls who have lost their fathers or been in abusive relationships.It's all based on psychology and i'm sure you could all picture how a PUA might play a girl like that.

I should really pull out my books and have a read over them to refamiliarise myself with the language and definitions...not too sure how pleased my girlfriend would be!!

seenitall

killeoinisback wrote: »

Probably the most heavily used neg is "OMG your roots are showing". Try to make it innocent sounding as naturally if a girl feels your being a prick she'll walk away. A statement like that can work wonders as long as it appears to be an innocent comment.

Interesting, killeoinisback! Well, I have to say I must be even more of an atypical woman than I had thought because if a guy told me that my roots were showing not long after having met me, I would have 3 immediate thoughts, and they would run in this order (as they indeed did while I was reading that example):

A) ah so, you're gay...
OR possibly very anal/metrosexual = yuck!
C) quite rude, too.

Because to me, there is no "innocent" comment on a person's appearance if one doesn't know them from Adam. Compliments can be fine (although I hear Irish women don't really know how to deal with them, but that's for a different thread altogether - and I'm not Irish ) but anything veering into even slightly negative is then exhibiting even slight rudeness, IMO.

Lived in Ireland for over 10 years now, and am glad to say I only ever once had a man I had just met comment on my appearance in a slightly critical manner (something about my socks/hosiery, IIRC), and he turned out to be gay. (I don't for a moment think that this is because I am usually immaculately turned out at all times, but it seems that gay guys may have more of an eye for detail than straight guys - I could be wrong but that's my interpretation).

honru

What I dislike most about PUA are the gurus and companies that target these vulnerable men, most of whom are apathetic and prone to laziness. I do think these men would be far better off pursuing the services of a psychologist or a counsellor, to target the underlying issue or issues that are causing these "blocks" to contact. Funnily enough the reason they don't go to the psychologist or the counsellor is probably the same reason why they repel women (too much pride).

killeoinisback

seenitall wrote: »

Interesting, killeoinisback! Well, I have to say I must be even more of an atypical woman than I had thought because if a guy told me that my roots were showing not long after having met me, I would have 3 immediate thoughts, and they would run in this order (as they indeed did while I was reading that example):

A) ah so, you're gay...
OR possibly very anal/metrosexual = yuck!
C) quite rude, too.

Because to me, there is no "innocent" comment on a person's appearance if one doesn't know them from Adam. Compliments can be fine (although I hear Irish women don't really know how to deal with them, but that's for a different thread altogether - and I'm not Irish ) but anything veering into even slightly negative is then exhibiting even slight rudeness, IMO.

Lived in Ireland for over 10 years now, and am glad to say I only ever once had a man I had just met comment on my appearance in a slightly critical manner (something about my socks/hosiery, IIRC), and he turned out to be gay. (I don't for a moment think that this is because I am usually immaculately turned out at all times, but it seems that gay guys may have more of an eye for detail than straight guys - I could be wrong but that's my interpretation).

Hi seenitall,

I'm glad that nobody has commented on your appearence in a negative manner...Although from reading your posts I get the impression that they might regret it if they did:P

Just in relation to your points A, B and C...

The Game teaches men to become alpha males. So in order to respond to your assumptions the responce would be one of not caring what you think. I might be gay, I might be anal/metrosexual or I might possibly be rude. But you know what, I really don't care what you think of me because i'm someone special and if you don't want to get to know me thats your loss! I have confidence in myself and if you are willing to judge someone on one comment (OMG your roots are showing!) then thats your loss really...

seenitall

Yup, that's right, I will make judgments on people based on what comes out of their mouths on the occasion of first meeting!

Whether that is a matter of my loss or my gain, is a moot point really, as the "alpha-male" will carry on being happy with himself and his specialness, while I will carry on being happy trusting my judgment (I consider it one of my better assets! ).

Fair play.

leggo

seenitall wrote: »

sooo... what are you saying? That I should laugh if someone blows a nose in my company? Now I really don't get it! (Perhaps Scanlas will best answer this, as he is the one who figures I'd be impressed by a guy blowing his nose...)

(Oh, and further to his post, I don't consider myself a particularly beautiful woman, but let's say for argument's sake! :pac:)

The only funny neg I ever used on a regular basis (and I wouldn't really need/want to use them anymore) was "ew you spat at me!"

Mainly because, understanding them as I did, I knew that wasn't a comment on her person in general (i.e. Not something that would genuinely damage her confidence) but would get both of us to a level-playing field of respect where we could then enjoy each other's company.

Like I said, you only neg someone IF they treat you with that disrespect where you NEED to politely and subtly assert yourself. If someone does or teaches otherwise, they're wrong.

When you get good enough, you learn to control the situation from the get-go so negging becomes irrelevant. As long as no long-term damage has been done to girls along the way (in which case, you're wrong and an arsehole) everybody wins.

I hate the blowing your nose stuff btw. Same deal with them saying you should never pay for stuff. A lot of that is tomato-tomato.

Wibbs

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

What I dislike most about PUA are the gurus and companies that target these vulnerable men, most of whom are apathetic and prone to laziness. I do think these men would be far better off pursuing the services of a psychologist or a counsellor, to target the underlying issue or issues that are causing these "blocks" to contact. Funnily enough the reason they don't go to the psychologist or the counsellor is probably the same reason why they repel women (too much pride).

Nope not IMO. Men with poor social skills with women have IME a few things wrong with them and their development, pride being among the least of their issues. It would be my humble that the normal development of social skills is interrupted in these men. For a few reasons. Some even clinical in the case of guys on the asbergers continuum. Recent societal changes another reason. Lack of self esteem(the old saw). I'd say most of all it's a lack of safe practice at an age where that's appropriate. IE the "training wheels" phase of dealing with young women/girls in their early to mid teens is missed. A phase where being daft, gauche and embarrassing is a given So a guy hits college age and still acts like a 13 year old around women? Game over. The other old saw that women mature faster is very true as far as socially goes. They have more practice out of the box and since it's generally a sellers market at that age they are at an advantage in many respects(not all though). Pride in such men who are out of step has little to do with it.

Counseling etc? Good idea, but and it's a big but while it will or should help internal development it's not going to be that much use in the practical end of social interactions. Neither do I think PUA is or not to the degree claimed. Though its results might be more obvious. It would be my take that PUA when it works is down to three things; the safety net of a "system" and instruction manual. Big thing for many men of this "type". I think women may miss the importance of that aspect. Practice. This is very important for the guy who is playing social catchup. He needs to practice what appears to be "natural" in the guy who has already gone through the early development stage at the right time. And it is learned behaviour. When a woman says "oh I want him to be natural and just to be himself", that natural and himself are the result of many years of practice, screwups and triumphs that he has learnt from. The same guy you feel such "natural chemistry" for today, you'd not touch with a barge pole if his 14 year old brain kicked in(rightly). And on top of practice it's a numbers game. I separate this out cos I do think it's important. Too many men think women are rare. They think they're hard to approach and "get". They're not. They're really not. Outside of gay folks, half of the worlds population possesses the wobbly bits they like and that half is looking for someone not unlike them. Pretty is common enough too. Too many men need to realise that tits and ass are no reason to lower your standards, lower your self value or be scared of those that possess them. The more women the "system" makes the guy meet, the more he'll realise that and value the person and more importantly the quality of that person behind the tits and ass. Thing is you don't need a system to do this and its better for women if you think like this. You're with her for her, not just because she happens to have the same bits as every other woman on the planet.

killeoinisback wrote: »

The Game teaches men to become alpha males.

This is where I take all sorts of issues with the PUA stuff. This notion of alpha is very much an american thing and it's very culturally based. It's also not so applicable to human interactions.

I might be gay, I might be anal/metrosexual or I might possibly be rude. But you know what, I really don't care what you think of me because i'm someone special and if you don't want to get to know me thats your loss! I have confidence in myself and if you are willing to judge someone on one comment (OMG your roots are showing!) then thats your loss really...

I;ve actually heard a guy come out with the roots thing. More than once. TBH my first thought has been "dork", because it was both obvious and incongruous. Like seenitall said you think "must be a gay lad and an American one at that". It certainly didnt come across as some PUA Jedi mind trick. IMHO if someone gets lucky with that line, it's in spite of it not because of it, or they're dealing with very slow witted women.