Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Ethics of PUA
Comments
-
-
-
Negs are designed for women who assume all men fancy them. I doubt many stunning women experience normal men blowing their nose when they don't have to. Another neg would be " you have beautiful eyes, especially the left one". The idea is to show you aren't won over by her looks without being rude. There are several definitions of negs. If a woman laughs some would say that is teasing not Negs. Saying all that I think negs( that I'm talking about) are crap as they can be hit or miss or easily delivered incorrectly, that's why they aren't really taught anymore. It's much better to transfom yourself such that the woman clearly knows that you don't care what she thinks of you or how well the interaction goessooo... 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 fargument's sake! :pac:)
You would be amazed at how effective not doing anything the woman says or not answering her questions in the first three minutes has on a womans attraction for you. There really is no need for negs.0 -
Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »You would be amazed at how effective not doing anything the woman says or not answering her questions in the first three minutes has on a womans attraction for you. There really is no need for negs.
Amazed? Not in the least. Why would I be? It takes all kinds, etc. All I'm saying is those kind of tactics don't work on me - basically because the targets of PUA techniques and I are a serious mismatch. The more a man is respectful, considerate and obviously desiring of my attention, the more attractive a proposition he will be to me (as I have written recently in a LL thread). Naturally, under the caveat that I find him physically appealing as well!
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59144
I'd agree with seenitall in that "pure" PUA stuff works more on a certain audience. More than others anyway. (Very) Broadly speaking, women who have an over reliance on their looks to garner male attention. Younger women another demographic. Both tend to think "this is all I have to do and be". Actually not much of the be involved.
The plainest Jane gets more attention(good and bad) by the time she's 20 than the best looking man by the time he's 30. If she has huge breasts she'll likely be pestered constantly, even if she has a face like a slapped arse. It's like background noise, attraction tinnitus and few men outside rock stars get or understand this. Most women don't spot it themselves after a while. It's accepted. One reason most young women are usually dire at advising men about how to go about attracting them, never mind women in general.
Another reason women can be dire at advising men is that more women attach "magical thinking" to sexual and romantic interactions*. When was the last time you heard a bloke of voting age say things like "love at first sight/fate/it was meant to be/my legs went weak when he caught my eye"? Rare. You can even hear women, smart women in their 30's come out with this stuff. This leaves them open to BS, damn near waking hypnosis in some cases. If you match what she believes is happening, she's more likely to believe it. Some of the smartest most capable women I've known can be like this when it comes to romance. The ones convinced they can't be BS'd, but can if you're subtle enough.
Back to the core PUA audience, very pretty/attractive women have this blindspot even more. They're caught between real saddos approaching them or no one halfway decent approaching them because of their looks. Both the saddos and the decent guys can be intimidated by them. Even with plainer women, you'll sometimes hear their boyfriends claim "she's out of my league" when she's plainly not, indeed she may be out of his. If some PUA guy shows up with halfway decent patter she's likely to think better of him.
PUA is aping much of what successful men who've picked this stuff up by osmosis or upbringing** do. Or even circumstance. Few men out there have not had the following experience. You're in a relationship and you get more come ons from women. Or you've just no interest in women in your life after a breakup say and again you get more come ons from women. There can be a confirmation bias going on, but there is a fair bit of truth to it. Why? Because you're not giving off "desperate" for a start. You're also not responding to her physical cues as much. You've got an unintentional take it or leave it vibe. You're standing out compared to the other men around. She has to give more of herself (a good thing) and the tables are turned. It's less a sellers market.
So if you're a man and you're looking to hook up or looking for a relationship, think back to when you weren't looking. Imagine that feeling. Talk with the woman. Talk with her eye to eye. Don't look down on her or put her on a pedestal. Both are uncomfortable for both. If nothing happens, but a bit of craic, well you've had a bit of craic. If she turns out to be a wagon(and she'll be less likely to be if you're chilled out), then realise just because she's got bewbs doesn't give her any excuse to be a tool, scrape her off politely(you have no reason to get upset beyond your own ego) and move on. I guarantee you'll be happier, meet more women and find and indeed keep a partner. No PUA required. I accept PayPal...
* and in other areas too. More women are spiritual even if not particularly religious, far more put store in horoscopes, spirits and "angels" etc. Why? Some cultural, but IMHO it's because more women rely on what they "gut feelings". It's just another way of thinking logically about a situation. It happens underground, subconsciously. All sorts of angles are looked at but not spelled out A B C and come to the surface as a fully formed result, but as it appears to have no step by step process it's explained away as gut, fate etc. Less men do this. I would advise them to try. It's doable with practice though Ive some way to go. I've found the wisest men and women use this method as much as the "lets take this step by step".
** I've found an odd one that a lot of the successful manwhores/PUA's as well as guys just good with women romantically tend to not be that close to their mothers. Maybe because early on they see women as having feet of clay, or that just because they're a woman, it doesn't make them less or more human. They look women eyeball to eyeball, not up at them nor down at them, though the latter works way more than the former.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
So if you're a man and you're looking to hook up or looking for a relationship, think back to when you weren't looking. Imagine that feeling. Talk with the woman. Talk with her eye to eye. Don't look down on her or put her on a pedestal. Both are uncomfortable for both. If nothing happens, but a bit of craic, well you've had a bit of craic. If she turns out to be a wagon(and she'll be less likely to be if you're chilled out), then realise just because she's got bewbs doesn't give her any excuse to be a tool, scrape her off politely(you have no reason to get upset beyond your own ego) and move on. I guarantee you'll be happier, meet more women and find and indeed keep a partner. No PUA required. I accept PayPal...
TBH This is mostly what i got from the PUA scene. Oh I have one line which is just awesome, but I've rarely used it. PUA taught me how to say hello with confidence. To understand that I have a lot to bring to any stage of a relationship, and that its not all in the womans' toolbox. Believe me, at one stage, I fully believed that I should be approaching with hat in hand almost begging for a moment of their time. I learned how to listen to women and not be afraid of that awful void of silence, and even to use it as part of conversation. Imagine saying that you have nothing to say.. haha.. priceless, and yet it puts women at their ease to realise you're confident enough to admit it. Or learning to enjoy learning about what a woman is passionate about, and sharing that enjoyment with her. So, I learned to talk to women. Amazing in its simplicity but nobody previously had been able to help me with it.
PUA (or rather the Ross Jeffries seminars in London) [I know RJ has turned into a bit of a nutcase now, but there was a time he was a genius]gave me the tools to remove sex from the equation. A series of "rituals" or meditation to remove anxiety or general "horniness" before I went out, and a general feeling that each occasion with a woman was an opportunity to experience something new. I even learned to enjoy the rejections somewhat since I could compare them with others (from my diary) and learn from them.
What PUA [what I tend to call serious PUA rather than the other amateur stuff] gives you a structure to learn how to be yourself. It doesn't seek to brainwash or change you much. Oh, you will change simply by gaining confidence. You'll lose loads of friends (I certainly did) who no longer share your pessimistic outlook, or those who can't share your sense of security in yourself. They'll try to bring you back down to their level of pain, but it comes down to a choice. To be happy or not. Simple.
Maybe its easier for other people to change their lives. For me, I needed a structure. I needed to follow a general plan. One week I would just say hello to 100 women, or I would just watch social interactions in public places to see if I could identify general mating/dating routines. Having a diary that I wrote down all of my experiences (good or bad) was interesting and I still refer to it now to help in my current relationship) It helped me enormously that I could ask a community of people all with similar experiences to mine for advice when I hit a stumbling block, or felt really down if someone I seriously liked failed to appreciate me.
There is a tendancy on BBS like boards.ie to bring things away from the personal. To make it almost less real. Sterile. But the reality is that PUA offers so much to those that are in need of help. Society has consistently failed to provide support for men (and some women) with this "problem", and when something comes along that can help its relegated to being about people being taken advantage of, or the domain of nutcases.
The really sad thing is that the very people who go seeking answers in PUA are the ones that are tired of being taken advantage of. They're doing something productive. Surely, thats worth some support?
Not that I expect much since the people who have learned it naturally will never really understand, and those that won't explore PUA for themselves will put it down simply because of their own fear of change.0 -
Amazed? Not in the least. Why would I be? It takes all kinds, etc. All I'm saying is those kind of tactics don't work on me - basically because the targets of PUA techniques and I are a serious mismatch. The more a man is respectful, considerate and obviously desiring of my attention, the more attractive a proposition he will be to me (as I have written recently in a LL thread). Naturally, under the caveat that I find him physically appealing as well!
Well so far it has worked on pretty much every girl so far for me. When I do it they get giggly and are visibly more attracted to me, if you are the exception then fair enough. If you want to turn a girl off then do what she says and answer her questions as she asks them directly. From my experience I have done consistently better with women when initially I don't do what she says or answer her questions.
Example:
Girl: where are you from?
Me: It begins with T and ends with S. The thing I love about ice is the cracking sound it makes when dropping it in water. You sound like you are from XYZ.
Girls love this non logical sort of conversation, it's essentially flirting. Answering questions directly is death for attraction.
say she issues a command ( in first three minutes):
Girl: Pass me my drink.
Me: See these (smiling) two things hanging from your torso? (as I touch them momentarily) They are called arms, you can reach and grab your drink with them.
I've noticed time and time again women start touching me and getting flirty with me with this behaviour, but if it doesn't work on you fair enough. Of course after a while you have to cut that sh*t out and have a proper converation with the girl.
You say you "Amazed, not in the least". Do you have experience applying what I said versus not doing it when chatting up women as a man? You can only be amazed when doing it and seeing the difference in how women react. PUA and being considerate and respectful isn't mutually exclusive.0 -
Oh, I'm sure your little tricks work like a dream on the girls you meet, Scanlas. That's why I said I'm not "amazed", and it's true. I'm not easily amazed, especially by things such as your two examples, and their effects on people who are not used to observing behaviour and learning about a person from it, i.e. who go into a social situation and take things at face value. I like to observe people, I like to deduce stuff about them based on their behaviour and what they say, and I actually have fun doing it. (Need I mention here that I don't generally imbibe alcohol on a night out, all the better to enjoy my night?)
Honestly, if I asked a guy to pass me a drink, perfectly reasonably and perfectly politely, and if he came out with that little "witty" nugget instead of passing me the drink, and especially when I've just met the guy, I'd just think "what a dcik, can't even communicate properly without trying to be clever within two seconds of meeting me" or "wow, that's a mass of defended insecurity you have there". TBH, I'd most probably look to extricate myself from his company ASAP, as I'm sure I have done in the past, because that little line does sound like something I would have heard before, sadly.0 -
Yup, that's the first thing now that I can envisage as even slightly plausible as to the subtle and desired influence on my subconscious... still, I can't guarantee I wouldn't think "Uh, you didn't have to say that out loud and make me apologise - not very considerate, are you?" but I guess the "cost-effectivness" of it would depend greatly on some other factors, such as erstwhile impressions on physical appearance, general behaviour etc. It is deffo more subtly manipulative and more fluid in its effect than blowing nose/dishing out negative comments on appearance.
EDIT: Just to clarify the above, I wouldn't be a typical PUA target because I do look for consideration and niceness in men, stemming from the fact that I'm not into Nsa sex, one night stands, etc. - just "potential" :eek:. I'm sure that a typical young 'un on a night out in a meat-market kind of place has different priorities in the moment...;)
I still don't like the look of that manipulative word slipped in there. Well played, but I'm onto you...:p
With as much respect as possible (because I acknowledge you are giving this a fair amount of due consideration despite your anti-PUA stance, and thanks for that), what you think makes you the exception in the EDIT portion of that post, in fact makes you the norm. For if I was to do a straw poll of 100 women, I would almost guarantee that I would get a near-unanimous verdict that the PUA stuff wouldn't work on them, or they wouldn't be the type of girl PUA's would go for etc.
Which makes perfect sense, every woman wants to feel like she is (to quote the Rihanna song) 'the only girl in the world'. That's why you reacted badly to Scanlas' recent post: he gave you an example that appeared to claim it can work on any female. Obviously, you have respect for yourself and an intelligent person...you're never going to admit that you would fall into line with the rest.
The problem is that what women say they want is often different to what they respond to. A funny example is on that show 'Take Me Out': gal 23 says she wants a farmer, a farmer walks out, her light goes red.
So, perhaps if you could look at this from as much of an unbiased view as possible, you may start to see some merit in it. I don't expect this thread to convert you, or anyone, but at least you may come away appreciating the alternative view more than you would have.
For example, it may shock you to learn that, as a person who has learned, ingested and then went onto teach this, I have never once gone out on a night out looking for a one-night stand. Now, I've had them but hey, **** happens when you're in the moment and have had a few drinks. But it kind of dispels your theory about all PUA targetting women who want a one-night stand. I, personally, am repelled these days by slutty women.So if you're a man and you're looking to hook up or looking for a relationship, think back to when you weren't looking. Imagine that feeling. Talk with the woman. Talk with her eye to eye. Don't look down on her or put her on a pedestal. Both are uncomfortable for both. If nothing happens, but a bit of craic, well you've had a bit of craic. If she turns out to be a wagon(and she'll be less likely to be if you're chilled out), then realise just because she's got bewbs doesn't give her any excuse to be a tool, scrape her off politely(you have no reason to get upset beyond your own ego) and move on. I guarantee you'll be happier, meet more women and find and indeed keep a partner. No PUA required. I accept PayPal...
Wibbs, I've thanked and given props to many of your posts on the matter so far, so please don't get offended when I charge that that advice would have absolutely no effect if given to a struggling male.
I've heard the "pretend you have a girlfriend" advice before, and even tried it out while learning this. It suffers from one massive flaw: if you could just pretend something, could you not then pretend to be Brad Pitt or George Clooney instead and reap the rewards?
The fundamental downfall of an otherwise solid theory you've posed is that it fails to take into account the how's and why's that struggling men are often clueless about when getting into this. What if the guy has never had a girlfriend? What if a woman won't give him the time of day to speak with him? What if he loses his train of thought within 5 seconds of any moderately attractive female talking to him? How is he supposed to bridge the unnatural gap between not knowing someone and engaging her in a full-fledged conversation? Your catch-all covers none of this. But it does sound pleasing on the ear, especially to women. Get me?
What does make sense is the "talk to her, not at her" mantra and the reaction to if it doesn't work out.
For example, I taught lads who had a bit of experience approaching well that you're no longer looking for "yes/no" answers, you're simply looking to "make a connection" with someone. That connection can be short- or long-term, time will tell. But essentially all you want is to find a common bond that you can build a physical and emotional relationship on. There's no case of acceptance or rejection for either side and, as a result, no pressure. Both can enjoy it and, hey, if no connection is made then neither party needs to lick their wounds.
Positive mental visualisation is another good (non-PUA specific) technique to look into, along similar lines to what you were saying. But this post is already in TL;DR territory so I'll either explain some other time or feel free to Google it.0 -
Well, leggo, believe it or not, I do respond to the type of stuff Scanlas described exactly in the way I said I did, and that's why I have never so far had any reason to feel played or used (I see all those tactics from a mile off and they are uniquely unattractive), but if it is easier for you to believe that a PUA guru like yourself would have me PUA'd in no time if we were to meet, then that is your right. Who am I to shatter dreams?
You see, I have a kind of a policy which works for me anyway, and that is the more socially adept a guy is, the harder I am going to make him work for my attention (a sort of reverse PUA, if you will :pac:). If a guy even semingly has a lot of options on the table, and if I get interested in him (which has been known to happen, but not as often as you'd think...), I will want to stand out in his mind; and the sure-fire way to do that is, as you know, not to give it up easily ("it" being attention, natch), or perhaps, not at all (depending on what I perceive him to be after, at the end of the day).
All that aside, though, I really don't see how my EDIT makes me conform (or not) to every other girl on the planet/Ireland/whatever, since all I am saying is that I am confident about being PUA-proof since I don't do nsa sex. If PUA meant something other that "pick-up artistry", I'd be better able to get what you're saying?0 -
Advertisement
-
Please never call me a guru again, or even a PUA. I consider myself neither, but use PUA a fair bit in the stuff I used to teach/write.
I also believe you would respond in that way, 100%, in the context you specifically (and shrewdly, I noticed) laid out, i.e. You ask in an honest, friendly way and he gets cheeky. Most girls would. It's an incongruent response by the guy.
But to declare yourself 'PUA-proof', to me, is the only part of your argument I find somewhat naive. It's like me saying I'm ginger proof. Hey, maybe what I've seen and heard might lead me to believe that, but making such a blanket statement would be asking to eat my words. Get me?
Essentially, all PUA ideally leaves when a guy would 'graduate' is a confident, assured man who is able to create options in his love, personal and professional life.
For example, after the breakdown of my first long term relationship and before I even heard of PUA, I began teaching myself about the dynamics of love, relationships and pulling because of one simple (slightly romanticised) goal: I didn't care about quantity, or quality, of women that I found. But when I DID find the right one...I wanted to make sure I knew what I needed to get and keep her, and have the life experience behind me to ensure that.
If that is manipulative, deceptive and wrong to you, then I'm sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree completely.0 -
-
-
Oh, I'm sure your little tricks work like a dream on the girls you meet, Scanlas. That's why I said I'm not "amazed", and it's true. I'm not easily amazed, especially by things such as your two examples, and their effects on people who are not used to observing behaviour and learning about a person from it, i.e. who go into a social situation and take things at face value. I like to observe people, I like to deduce stuff about them based on their behaviour and what they say, and I actually have fun doing it. (Need I mention here that I don't generally imbibe alcohol on a night out, all the better to enjoy my night?)
Honestly, if I asked a guy to pass me a drink, perfectly reasonably and perfectly politely, and if he came out with that little "witty" nugget instead of passing me the drink, and especially when I've just met the guy, I'd just think "what a dcik, can't even communicate properly without trying to be clever within two seconds of meeting me" or "wow, that's a mass of defended insecurity you have there". TBH, I'd most probably look to extricate myself from his company ASAP, as I'm sure I have done in the past, because that little line does sound like something I would have heard before, sadly.
No you wouldn't because it would be done in a friendly banterish type way, you are assuming an incorrect context in your head. If it comes across rude then it's done wrong.
Anyway the stuff I'm describing is basically good social skills and charisma broken down into learnable chunks. People with good social skills tend not to get into question answer questions answer question answer discussions as it turns an interaction flat and kills any attraction there might be. They know how to spice up a conversation to add tension and make it emotionally interesting. To say that doesn't work on you is plain nonsense. It works on everyone because it is enjoyable, it certainly works on me, I hate flat conversations.0 -
Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »To say that doesn't work on you is plain nonsense. Well, this gave me a chuckle at least... sorry to inform you of this little bit of home-truth but I am the most qualified person on the subject of "me" :cool:, while frankly, you don't even get a look-in at qualifying in that area!
Anyway, why so insistent about the whole thing? surely you are not so naive as to think that every woman on the planet will fall for the same Bs you're trying to feed them? Because I certainly haven't in the past, and like I said, if anyone is that clueless as to come up with that sort of unprovoked guff within minutes of meeting me, I'm afraid I have already dismissed them in my head by the time they have finished with their little spiel about two arms or similar. Not so much a question of "would I" as "I already have, and will continue to do so". Life's just too short.
Unnecessary rudeness does not equal "friendly banterish" in my book, no matter if you're smiling your head off in the process of being defensive about passing a drink (!), but as I have said, I'm sure that there are girls out there who don't hold to the same opinion. Just don't make a mistake of assuming that one size fits all!0 -
Well, this gave me a chuckle at least... sorry to inform you of this little bit of home-truth but I am the most qualified person on the subject of "me" :cool:, while frankly, you don't even get a look-in at qualifying in that area!
Anyway, why so insistent about the whole thing? surely you are not so naive as to think that every woman on the planet will fall for the same Bs you're trying to feed them? Because I certainly haven't in the past, and like I said, if anyone is that clueless as to come up with that sort of unprovoked guff within minutes of meeting me, I'm afraid I have already dismissed them in my head by the time they have finished with their little spiel about two arms or similar. Not so much a question of "would I" as "I already have, and will continue to do so". Life's just too short.
Unnecessary rudeness does not equal "friendly banterish" in my book, no matter if you're smiling your head off in the process of being defensive about passing a drink (!), but as I have said, I'm sure that there are girls out there who don't hold to the same opinion. Just don't make a mistake of assuming that one size fits all!
The context is wrong in your head regards the pass me a dring example. It wouldn't be defensive. It's more like two good friends bantering having a lighthearted laugh. Being defensive is a great way to turn off women.
As I said if anything comes across as rude it's done wrong, it should be fun banter. Passing the drink was an example I thought up on the top of my head. In that example the drink would have to be clearly closer to her than you otherwise it probablye would be rude. Attractive women often try get men to jump through hoops, by not jumping through her hoops she gets more attracted.
The vast majority of women are attracted to the same fundamental characteristics in men to varying degrees. Of course on top of that there will have their own individual unique things that attract them. Learning PUA is about learning to get those characteristics for yourself. The examples I gave are very basic illustrations of social skills that some people have naturally and some have to learn. I'd almost guarantee a man making you laugh at yourself and taking charge and leading you makes you more attracted to him because it works on pretty much all women as far as I'm aware.0 -
OK, Scanlas. At the end of the day, you are free to make "pretty much" any assumptions about me that you like, and "almost guarantee" anything about me that you like to.
As long as both our ways of social interaction/getting rid of rude fools (delete as appropriate) work for us both, I'd say we're both happy out!0 -
-
gargleblaster wrote: »I can't speak for anyone else but I can count on one hand the number of times I've been hit on ..
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
It's not a value judgement. Certainly not on my part. Merely an observation. Scams/cohersive tactics etc are clearly going to work on slower witted people. Male and female. They'll also work more on naive people, male and female.gargleblaster wrote: »I'm also offended by the idea that this only works on "slow witted" women. That has been implied more than once and it's ****ing insulting.
Yes that would be a factor alright. Certainly the bad boy act is more likely to work on someone with previous emotional abuse, which nearly always goes in tandem with physical abuse, even if the latter is absent. If ones first experience of love is based on an unhealthy template(doesn't even need to be overt abuse) that would be your template for how you may judge and value future love.It is extremely likely that it also works on some (many? most?) women who have been abused. Do I need to pull up some statistics on child abuse to illustrate how this would be an advantage with respect to the 'numbers game'?
Doesn't even need to be parental love. I've noted that ones first love and how that pans out often influences how ones future romantic attachments go. For men and women. Indeed I'd say as much if not more for men on that score. If their first teenage romantic attachment was unrequited, they seem to seek this out again and again. The "I'm always their friend, never their boyfriend" type. If their first love went well enough, then they tend to not settle for being the unrequited one. Women can follow this too, but seem to be generally better at resetting the mechanism on that score.
Of course not G, but IMHO it would be more on target for women in general.I'm also bothered by this idea that women are hit on so very much. Maybe this generalization is true but it's certainly not the case for every woman.
Not just nor necessarily overtly hit on. I mean other stuff, sometimes subtle stuff where you were the focus of romantic/sexual based male attention. Where you were judged on your gender, attractiveness and sexuality. That would happen more to women than men.I can't speak for anyone else but I can count on one hand the number of times I've been hit on, and that was mostly drunks in bars or married men.
I had to look that one up. And I thought I'd done enough reading on the subject.I also would like some pro-PUA person to address my question about LMR. Is this an arcane concept in the PUA lingo? If so that'd explain the lack of answers. It would be extremely encouraging as well. Seems a tad dodgy to me TBH. Last minute resistance(to sex)? I figure if that happens, regardless of whatever dopey theory lays behind it, you stop. End of. It's called changing ones mind and acknowledging that and stopping is called good manners. Positions reversed? Where I've gone home with a woman or she with me and I feel knackered, too wasted or suddenly not that pushed or got the sniff of a boiler of large eared Leporidae I'd expect her to chill out. Sure she may be pissed off, but giving me static? No thanks. Been there with the last reason above. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
The woman has every opportunity to say no and at no stage are you lying to or deceiving her. You're simply making her comfortable with a decision she's already made.
That's so true! (and I wasn't even aware of the concept as such.) The onus is on the woman here to know what she is doing and stick to her decision in spite of seeing the poor little darling of a disgruntled, blue-balled guy in front of her. Or not, as the case may be.
It happened to me with someone not too long ago. I'd been seeing someone who thought he was getting somewhere that particular night, but in fact he wasn't. After a great deal of heavy petting, he got a bit, ahem, annoyed and removed the physical contact all right (maybe he'd been reading PUA?) so we had a right old natter about it all, but that didn't get him anywhere either. Bless his little cotton socks. (Needless to say, that fling didn't last very long - we were at cross purposes - surprise, surprise!) 0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
Jesus, you really don't get women, nay people beyond the surface. My opinion of course, but still. And before you think this is some AMOG thing(see I'm down with the jargon) thing it's not. TBH I'm beyond that crap at this stage, though miss some parts of it.
Word to the wise(and to be fair is only my take), depending on context quite a few women are only too happy to just want you to use them for sex and they you. And are quite open about it if you're listening. They don't want the moon in june BS longterm. They don't always want to add "value" to the encounter. They just need an itch scratched and you're the back scratcher. They want what Jong described as the zipless fcuk. To think otherwise IMH is buying into and is guilty of too much of the madonna whore thing which is again too much of the PUA mindset coming from both fear, ignorance and projection of what they think they want.. Within which for all their claimed insight they usually miss or get it by mistake.leggo wrote:It's not that they don't want to sleep with you, it's that they want to see if you ONLY want to use them for sex.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
To some degree I agree with you, but it's a bit akin too "men can never understand women".This theory is quite one-dimensional, imo, as it fails to understand that almost every decision women make with sex, love and relationships is considerably more complex than us men will probably ever be able to fully grasp.
I can think of quite a few among friends of mine. Not all the time, nor even that often, but yep they just needed the NSA shag with a willing and attractive stranger and didn't want anything of him after. I've been with a couple of women for just a night and nothing more and they were very clear they wanted nothing more and in convo after had observed that quite a few men in their past had not gotten this notion at all. Tables turned type of thing. Probably thought there was some reverse psychology going on. TBH on the first occasion I didn't get it myself. But yep a woman saying towards the end of the night "fancy a shag" and wanting nada but that happens and happens often enough going by me and my friends of either genders experience anyway.Though obviously I can't support this with research, I highly doubt any woman has just simply gone into a **** with the attitude that they need an itch scratched.
Oh it certainly can mean that alright with unfettered promiscuity(ditto for men), but I'm not talking about someone like that. Again I think this is one of the problems with a fair bit of the PUA philosophy. It's very simplistic in it's notions of women and men for that matter. Notions like the slut defence idea as an example. Plus much of it is predicated on a narrow enough cultural jump off point. IE the American dating scene and culture. It's quite a different culture in many overt and subtle ways. Ditto for the Alpha stuff. Big meme in the US.Even if you take the, for lack of a better term, 'sluttiest' of women putting out to any man: even then that 'sluttiness' has layers of complexity into what made them that way, what they ultimately hope to achieve etc.
Yep, but again simplistic. Like I'll describe with regard to women's behaviour today, the landscape has also changed for men. In the past a man slut had to be far more careful. While women get pregnant the consequences were more on the man in the past too. Shotgun weddings and the like are pretty rare in our society. Those same societal changes that allow the average halfway attractive 25 year old man to have more of a sex life than Casanova in his entire life and a magnitude more than his great grandfather would have dreamed of also apply to women IMH.Whereas I think it's entirely plausible that a LOT of young, single men approach sex and the pursuit of it just needing to find a hole to relieve themselves.
Of course there are innate diffs between the genders in reproductive strategies. That's a given, but again IMHO it's a very simplistic delineation when it comes to the PUA philosophy. While I would be the first to tout these diffs(as seenitall noted) and how they affect observed macro behaviour, I would caution myself not to ignore the higher thinking end in humans that often subverts them. Nor the cultural and social pressures that can affect behaviour.So to judge them on the same scale is, perhaps in this case, more telling of your own inability to grasp women, not mine. (Again, I say 'in this case', as I recognise you've made tons of valid contributions thus far)
EG before reliable contraception women were behaving in a more "natural" state, because of the risk of more natural consequences for their actions. Since the advent of reliable contraception many women are adapting to this new biology. Consciously and subconsciously(inc the type of men they pick on the pill). Without it the "slut" would be pregnant very early on in the game. Hell the average woman enjoying a healthy in between relationships sex life with the odd stranger sex/ONS's would be preggers in no time. If the average sexual partner figure for the average woman is supposed to be around 7 men, then in the "wild" that's at likely 6 pregnancies and children. They simply couldn't risk it. Yet women today are enjoying those sexual asides(or entire lifestyles) in a way their great grandmothers would barely fathom(yes they were being "naughty" themselves but not nearly to that extent). The sex life trajectory of many women today mirrors more closely the sex life trajectory of many men in quite a novel way for the genders. I suspect this mirroring will increase.*
Where the more "old fashioned" approach will still be in play is touched on by seenitall. Ironically it's after the woman has gotten pregnant and had a child, often because of a failure of this new biology. She for good reasons will revert to the judgement of her past biology. Much more likely to look for the relationship and to avoid the choices of her pre baby sex life. Much more likely to look for the "provider" the "good catch" to one degree or other. She's less likely to be "slutty" in the eyes of many men, yet ironically as seenitall also notes her stock tends to go down, especially among the men who have the madonna whore mindset going on. A tad confusing
It would be a let down and even a PITA, but that's it. I'd say cool beans. I'd ask why alright, but the decision is hers. Just like if I came over the same way. What you've described has happened to me at the condom package opening stage and that's what I did. Turned out she was newly split up and thought a ONS would help her. Get back on the horse as it were(not a reflection of my prowessTo flip it a bit: what would your reaction be if, after a night where you met a beautiful woman, took her home, got to the stage where you even had a condom on and only THEN she turns around and says "Sorry I can't do this"? After giving you no previous indication that it wasn't on the cards?). But at the last minute when it was actually going to happen it just felt wrong for her. Not an uncommon experience I'd imagine for many women. Certainly women mates of mine have done similar, though often went through the motions out of a sense of guilt and accommodation and regretted it afterwards. That's pretty common. Indeed few enough would be the women who've had a fuller sex life not had that "what was I thinking"/sense of regret over a ONS. It's not always a "last minute slut defence" and like I said the notion of it and efforts to bypass this notion do not sit well with me.
*other influences include the greater equality of women and greater social support in society. They need less of a protector role from a man for nigh on the first time in history. This also changes the landscape. This social support in the US is much lesser. It's much easier to fall through the cracks and end up in a trailer park or worse. In a society like that it's understandable that women would be A) more cautious and
more likely to look for socially dominant men Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Ah Wibbs, in fairness you're (perhaps unintentionally) strawmanning me a bit now. For example, there's a fair bit of a difference between arguing that complex thoughts go into a woman deciding whether she has sex or not, and arguing that women never have NSA sex (which I didn't). And so on.
I agree with you on the following points:- Western women's attitudes towards sex are vastly different in the 21st century (especially with the likes of Sex and the City validating that attitude on a global scale).
- Several of PUA's theories are overly-simplistic of the genders (one being, ironically, about women's attitude towards sex...it discusses it only towards the end that the man 'gets' the ride, and not beyond)
However, you're taking a simplistic view yourself, i.e. women telling you that they want nothing more, the woman you mention saying she'd just come out of a long-term relationship etc. Beware taking a woman (and men too, but another discussion for another day) at their word. I get the impression you're in a long-term relationship/married from your posts, when your significant other tells you "I'm fine", be careful yeah.
The reality (and there's a great PUA piece out there that lays this out, I'll hunt it down if I can) is that the truth is oft negligible to females. And I've found it time-and-time again in both this side of my life and working for years in female-dominated environments. For common examples, see the likes of "Once a cheater, always a cheater", "All men are scum" etc.
In other words, as a method of self-preservation (perhaps born out of women's role as the 'lesser' sex in previous generations), women will believe what it is necessary for them to justify the way they are feeling. And they'll live their entire life around these beliefs unless they are proven untrue and fit previous ideals (i.e. not trusting men until that one Prince Charming comes along). The danger, for men, is that if they take these truths at face value then they are going to be left either with a lonely bachelorhood or sleeping on the couch a lot.
So arguing that sometimes women just want NSA sex might be true, but it is also failing to take into account what led to that desire and what possible motives and preferable ideals lie behind taking this 'truth' at face value. Certainly, the women that I know that adopt this attitude, often have serious heartbreak or past trauma behind them that they don't inform you about when they talk of hitting Copper's looking for a quick shag and nothing more.
It's kind of a chicken-and-egg situation: did they really want a quick shag or did they hope this guy was that Prince Charming, then write him off as a 'get yer bit and split' when they realised he wasn't because it was socially acceptable to do so?
We've seen it here, too. Seenitall gives a fantastic, honest example that I'll use again of how she'll test men MORE if they are more socially adept. This doesn't make sense to man's basic logic: the more attractive he is, the more of a rough time he gets. It's directly contradictory. But it's all a part of women's hard-wiring where they expect a man to see past the base level and find the winning formula to push her buttons. Using your logic on LMR, because she is giving you a hard-time, you should take her cues that she doesn't like you and respect her decision. That's not what she really wants and you are only proving to her that you're not worthy of her investing time and emotion in you because you can't read past what's coming out of her mouth.
Out of interest, did you ever see that girl you experienced LMR with again? (Genuine question: the test, in this case, might have been to take the option of sex away from you to see if you were still interested afterwards. I'm just going on the limited info you're feeding me)
The funny thing is that Seenitall's 'strategy' also justifies PUA's existence. One great quote from 'The Game' says, essentially, that while boys were fighting and acting the fool in the schoolyard, girls were watching, talking amongst each other and planning for the future. Men have never before got that opportunity, as it is seen as almost a 'waiving of your alpha male rights' by admitting weakness with the lads down the pub.
We've seen examples of women's 'game' in this topic, from women, this is simply lads' way of evening the playing field. Is it perfect? No, far from it. But the beauty of science is that it always is, and always will be, an ongoing study.0 -
Seenitall gives a fantastic, honest example that I'll use again of how she'll test men MORE if they are more socially adept.
The funny thing is that Seenitall's 'strategy' also justifies PUA's existence.
That's ok, leggo, but since we seem to be taking my little old self as some sort of female template now, you are conveniently forgetting my stating earlier on in the thread that :"The more a man is respectful, considerate and obviously desiring of my attention, the more attractive a proposition he will be to me (as I have written recently in a LL thread). Naturally, under the caveat that I find him physically appealing as well!"
On that LL thread I mentioned, I also wrote that the more devoid of options I perceive a man to be, the more his stock will rise in my eyes - to further elaborate now, he will generally seem like a safer bet for a long-termer to me than a more alpha-male, attractive to all and sundry, charmer version (the more devoid of options -> less opportunity to stray -> less likely to stray -> more reliable by virtue of circumstance, if nothing else).
The gist of it is, I prefer someone who I don't feel the need to have to "test" in the first place.
Which seems to me to, very far from justifying the PUA's existence, nullify its raison d'etre. However, I am well aware that (as I keep saying) I would be an atypical PUA target, and that most young women are not constrained by my mixture of circumstance and experience, to adopt this kind of pragmatic approach to dating/romance/no-nsa-policy.
I'm just saying, don't make me an example for womanhood at large! 0 -
-
Oi, are you sayin' I amn't special?!! :mad:
Joking aside, don't know why you keep insisting/alluding that I see/want to see myself as unique and an exception when all I am doing is relating my position on a certain aspect of life and what works/doesn't work for me in that regard. Do you equate that to me saying I am "different", "better" than others (women who are amenable to PUA techniques, I guess) somehow? Because I wouldn't follow that logic at all, as much as I'm sure that I'm certainly not the only woman out there with a PUA-proof attitude/experience - it's just my supposition I would be in minority. NOT because I'm special, but because of my lifestyle; and if a man, PUA or not, thought that he could make me compromise my lifestyle for a certain period, by some means, well, that would make him the one who thinks he's unique, surely?
I'm happy to contribute to the thread, and have my contributions commented upon, and then comment on the comments, of course! 0 -
No, I'm not equating it to you saying you're 'better' than anyone. You are, in fact, in the vast majority of women that I've spoken to who consider themselves immune from this.
And I've no problem with that. If PUA was about making you compromise your lifestyle...then I believe you'd be dead right in your assertion. I'd agree with you and shake your hand!
What PUA teaches is for men to best accommodate themselves into your current lifestyle in a way that is productive for both parties, on either a short- or long-term basis.
What I would've taught, myself, is for men to put themselves in a prime position where you will see them in a respectful, attractive light by which you will both be able to judge whether you can fit each other into your respective lifestyles.
So while I do completely believe that you are immune to your perception of PUA, I think you still have a slightly skewed view of what it actually is. I've said it already in this thread...but PUA isn't about the woman, it's about a man changing something he is unhappy about to accommodate more women.
Though I also acknowledge, again, the fact that you have approached this discussion with an open mind and it has been better for it. So respect for that, I guess that does make you somewhat special after all! 0 -
Advertisement
-
Again I think this is one of the problems with a fair bit of the PUA philosophy. It's very simplistic in it's notions of women and men for that matter. Notions like the slut defence idea as an example. Plus much of it is predicated on a narrow enough cultural jump off point. IE the American dating scene and culture. It's quite a different culture in many overt and subtle ways. Ditto for the Alpha stuff. Big meme in the US.
...
It would be a let down and even a PITA, but that's it. I'd say cool beans. I'd ask why alright, but the decision is hers. Just like if I came over the same way. What you've described has happened to me at the condom package opening stage and that's what I did. Turned out she was newly split up and thought a ONS would help her. Get back on the horse as it were(not a reflection of my prowess). But at the last minute when it was actually going to happen it just felt wrong for her. Not an uncommon experience I'd imagine for many women. Certainly women mates of mine have done similar, though often went through the motions out of a sense of guilt and accommodation and regretted it afterwards. That's pretty common. Indeed few enough would be the women who've had a fuller sex life not had that "what was I thinking"/sense of regret over a ONS. It's not always a "last minute slut defence" and like I said the notion of it and efforts to bypass this notion do not sit well with me.
Those are my concerns in a nutshell. (In addition to negs/manipulation of course.)
It seems to encourage the viewing of people as caricatures. I never 'observed' boys in the schoolyard with an eye to the future. I was too busy singing songs and talking about movies. Such pigeonholing and caricaturing is just - wrong. People are not caricatures and broad-brushing them like that is nonsense.
So no, we're not all 'precious little unique snowflakes' but we're also not caricatures of our gender.0 -
Ach, leggo, you smooth divil, you :cool:... you have me almost "turned" here!
Next thing I know, I will be looking specifically for a PUA-coached guy in order to have him accomodate himself into my... er, lifestyle.
Fair play. 0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
Ah Wibbs, in fairness you're (perhaps unintentionally) strawmanning me a bit now. No not at all. Just debating your points that's all.
Which I didn't either. I'm just questioning your seemingly more black and white stances on some things. I'd be much more fluid with these things. Hey potato potatoeFor example, there's a fair bit of a difference between arguing that complex thoughts go into a woman deciding whether she has sex or not, and arguing that women never have NSA sex (which I didn't). And so on.
But she had. About two weeks before. I knew of their relationship beforehand. We subsequently had a flingette for a few months off and on.However, you're taking a simplistic view yourself, i.e. women telling you that they want nothing more, the woman you mention saying she'd just come out of a long-term relationship etc
I agree. Indeed any number of my numerous erstwhile posts in PI/RI stated just that about men and women. One of my lines when someone was getting the runaround in a relationship, yet the one doing the runarounding was giving mixed signals was; If someone kicks you in the groin and then tells you they love you, which do you believe?Beware taking a woman (and men too, but another discussion for another day) at their word.
You really couldn't be any more wrong L.I get the impression you're in a long-term relationship/married from your posts, Happily single.
Again many a subject I've tackled in LTR stuff previously in PI and one I would agree with. Plus my personal experience of more than once being the "other man" bore that out. The boyfriend was missing red flags the like of which have rarely been seen outside of Chairman Mao birthday celebrations. Yet when crap hit the fan they inexorably came back with "but but it was out of the blue(tm)". Eh no, it really wasn't(or very very rarely).when your significant other tells you "I'm fine", be careful yeah.
I'd kinda agree, but again in more subtle terms. It's not that the truth is negligible to women(certainly not outside of relationship stuff. Indeed in business have oft found them more honest than men), but the emotional truth can be more in flux, less a steady state. What may be internally true today, may not necessarily be internally true in a months time. Crude example: For men "I love you" can often be a state realised and reached, a box ticked and kinda forget about it. For women it's equally if not more strongly meant, but is a state in a continuum which has to be nurtured and is more subject to change. Hence PI would get quite a few guys recently dumped who would write with some incredulity, "she told me she loved me only a month ago, now this??". Some would respond with "the cow she was lying". My take would be that often, very often IME she was telling and feeling the truth at the time, but that has changed. However both are telling the truth, just from slightly different angles(generalisations ahoy obviously). One could also argue that if women are economic with the truth of their sexuality and emotions that they're pulling a double bluff by convincing men they require slut defences and all that, when actually all they want is a no strings zipless fcuk.The reality (and there's a great PUA piece out there that lays this out, I'll hunt it down if I can) is that the truth is oft negligible to females. And I've found it time-and-time again in both this side of my life and working for years in female-dominated environments. For common examples, see the likes of "Once a cheater, always a cheater", "All men are scum" etc.
I
I would broadly agree with that. especially the first part. Of the last I would also agree, just were we differ in what the actual truths may be.n other words, as a method of self-preservation (perhaps born out of women's role as the 'lesser' sex in previous generations), women will believe what it is necessary for them to justify the way they are feeling. And they'll live their entire life around these beliefs unless they are proven untrue and fit previous ideals (i.e. not trusting men until that one Prince Charming comes along). The danger, for men, is that if they take these truths at face value then they are going to be left either with a lonely bachelorhood or sleeping on the couch a lot.
While I also know some women like that, most women I know that have gone for the ONS on occasion or had a series of flings weren't traumatised or heartbroken. Though more of the latter at times. But then a few men out there have come out of the end of relationships looking for an anger shag too. I've known well screwed up women who've never sought nor were interested in sex outside relationships.So arguing that sometimes women just want NSA sex might be true, but it is also failing to take into account what led to that desire and what possible motives and preferable ideals lie behind taking this 'truth' at face value. Certainly, the women that I know that adopt this attitude, often have serious heartbreak or past trauma behind them that they don't inform you about when they talk of hitting Copper's looking for a quick shag and nothing more.
Possibly. One could argue again that a fair few men also think and act from the same jump off point. I certainly have at times. I guess men who think of a ONS woman as a "slut" and not partner material don't though.It's kind of a chicken-and-egg situation: did they really want a quick shag or did they hope this guy was that Prince Charming, then write him off as a 'get yer bit and split' when they realised he wasn't because it was socially acceptable to do so?
Yes but as I've said and seenitall herself has said she's now looking for a different kind of man than she may have been before. She's more like a woman before contraception and the sexual revolution. Like those now she's got more to lose by picking a windowlicker or worse.We've seen it here, too. Seenitall gives a fantastic, honest example that I'll use again of how she'll test men MORE if they are more socially adept. This doesn't make sense to man's basic logic: the more attractive he is, the more of a rough time he gets. It's directly contradictory. But it's all a part of women's hard-wiring where they expect a man to see past the base level and find the winning formula to push her buttons
Again we're back to where I am uncomfortable, because it's too close for me to "she said no, but she really meant yes, your honour". This is just me personally bear in mind. In any case I don't see "I'm not sure about this" or even moreso "I don't want to do this" as giving me a hard time. Hey maybe you're right and I'm channeling some Jedi PUA mind trick already, because I'm not that pushed and can take it or leave it? That I want her there willing and able and wanting me with no indecision involved? Ans if I don't get that then I'm just not interested. Thats possible too I suppose.Using your logic on LMR, because she is giving you a hard-time, you should take her cues that she doesn't like you and respect her decision. That's not what she really wants and you are only proving to her that you're not worthy of her investing time and emotion in you because you can't read past what's coming out of her mouth.
Sorry yea, not being more clear.Out of interest, did you ever see that girl you experienced LMR with again? (Genuine question: the test, in this case, might have been to take the option of sex away from you to see if you were still interested afterwards. I'm just going on the limited info you're feeding me)
Yep like I said we had a no strings affair for a while. I didn't want a relationship and neither did she so soon after her last going belly up. Luckily she wasn't one of those women who can't be single and goes from one relationship to the next without a breather. She liked and would miss sex, but didn't want the stuff outside the bedroom at that point in her life. Plus she wasn't going sexual/intimacy wise "cold turkey", (t'was a 4 year LTR she was coming out of). She described it well years later suggesting I was like a nicotine patch for a smoker giving up. Hey I was providing a valuable service godammit!
Maybe, but equally maybe I was lucky, because between the ribbing one might get from my male friends we would be pretty free to discuss our fears and/or weaknesses with each other. I also had and have women mates who would be similarly open on that score. Though to be fair the men in my life have tended to be slightly more or differently open in this way, but its always good to get another unalloyed opinion from a slightly different angle(and for them too). For me I have mostly felt that if a man can't share what he feels are weaknesses with his friends and they with him, then he's unlikely to get past them or improve matters and he's still a boy in a lot of ways. In the sense of his ego anyway. I'm probably not explaining myself too well there though...Men have never before got that opportunity, as it is seen as almost a 'waiving of your alpha male rights' by admitting weakness with the lads down the pub.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
gargleblaster wrote: »So no, we're not all 'precious little unique snowflakes' but we're also not caricatures of our gender.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
If every routine worked on every woman and you could scientifically strategise your way into their knickers, I'd imagine it would be fun for a while but would get very boring, very quickly. Us men do love a chase, after all.
What makes this fun is the fact that you can't do so. You're only as good as your last 'set', so to speak. You may be the Dali Lama of pick-up but some random skirt in Copper's doesn't know or care about that. You have to use your knowledge to figure out, in a short space of time, where a possible future connection lies and build on it from there (that's called 'congruence'). If you do so, then you can meet and build a relationship with a whole new person who you can gain from in so many ways. Every woman has different interests, different sense of humour, different things which push her buttons and so on. That aspect is tremendously rewarding.
What's not fun, for many men I've encountered, is the feeling that they don't deserve to hold a woman's attention, that they are destined to die alone and they should hide away from the world miserable because nobody cares about their problems or struggles.
PUA deals more with the latter than simply caricaturing women. It plays on basic human nature, informing the man to the point where he is confident, then allowing him to use that knowledge to assist in building a happy life for himself.Ach, leggo, you smooth divil, you :cool:... you have me almost "turned" here!
Next thing I know, I will be looking specifically for a PUA-coached guy in order to have him accomodate himself into my... er, lifestyle.
Fair play.
Oh you. Now 'turning' you would be up there with my proudest achievements. I always say knock it til you've tried it, though! 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
Maturity... or laziness. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
Nope it's actually more like laziness. I take compliments handy enough. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
And just to throw my two cents on actual PUA methods...
It seems to me that there are basically three fundamental areas, as far as nature is concerned, when it comes to attraction between a man and a woman.
- Physical attraction, being number one.
This is worked on, throughout someones life, activities and interests to raise confidence.
Getting the body in shape.
Dressing well etc
The obvious things.
But also encapsulates ones approach sexually.
Women desire sex just as much as men.
Just as a woman uses sex as a means of leverage, men can do just the same.
Despite their (often deceptive) claims about how they like a gentle approach, most women desire something more libertine.
Some women fantasize about being raped.
Some engage in sexual acts with several men.
A dominance mentality, and oftentimes "reverse dominance", in reference to the latter.
Not in reference specifically to the physical performance, but in terms of the "psycho sexual" correspondence that occurs - to be "ravaged", in a sense, is almost certainly more fulfilling for the majority of women.
- Perception of ones feeling toward another.
Here, some harmless deception is often necessary.
A woman will be far more responsive, the more she feels that you are attracted to her, or the greater your degree of regard for her.
The fact of the matter is though, it's productive for no man to hold a woman whose presence in is life is unstable at best, as the "centre of his world".
So I refer back to the point that some harmless deception is necessary.
Much the same as giving someone a smile to make them feel at ease, even if that smile isn't entirely natural.
- The bonding process.
I've read briefly of something known as "oxytoxin" bonding.
Effectively what it refers to is the fact that the coital process for men and women varies slightly, in that as oppose to men, women do develop - in spite of themselves - some degree of attachment during sex.
For a man to disregard this, for example, after the act, can be quite detrimental, emotionally, for the female in question.
To acknowledge that this bonding occurs however, and be able to handle it accordingly, is oftentimes a necessity as regards what a woman might look for in a potential sexual partner.
So, as oppose to shoving her out the door the next morning with a "thanks, that was awesome" - a more congenial considerate approach will defuse this bonding in a much less painful way.
Perhaps some consider it to be an ego thing, something which concerns a womans desire for respect - but it's actually a physical/chemical circumstance.
But they're just my points of view 0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement