The Ethics of PUA

Reward Hunter

Just one other interesting point to consider - that I have an opinion on.

And perhaps this affects more directly women who have been abused at some point - because it's effectively in relation to trust.


Women who have been abused previously, can oftentimes have issues establishing trust with a man/men - I think it's fair to say.

This can often lead to their inability to relax, for their bodies to be responsive, and therefore the creation and sustenance of some degree of sexual chemistry.

In short, it inhibits their ability to enjoy sex - and as sex is the basis of connection between a man and woman in a relationship - it inhibits their relationship ability.

Oftentimes however, a degree of familiarity of certain character traits with someone - ironically, perhaps even in relation to the person from whom they received the abuse - can be enough to establish a degree of trust.

This puts them in a position where they can indeed experience that sexual chemistry - but only with someone who meets them characteristic requirements - giving them that sense of familiarity and therefore, trust.

I think trust and therefore relaxation, is the reason for example, prostitutes and pornographic actresses don't experience pleasure from the physical acts in which they partake.


However, with PUA material - which effectively is beginning to uncover the subconscious mechanisms for attraction, so we can apply them on a conscious level, perhaps it's possible to overcome or, perhaps more accurately say, meet the requirements for coital enjoyment - without having to "fall in love" and go through the rigors of pre-relationship "testing" (those things that we all know women do when assessing a new partner so lines of trust and acceptance are established).

And in the case of abused women, aid in their ability to establish a line of trust and a means to return to a sense of normality when it comes to sexual relations.


But simply in my opinion - trust and therefore chemistry will be based on the ACTUAL PHYSICAL ATTRACTION, the PERCEPTION OF DEGREE OF ATTRACTION, and that which is most likely most overlooked, ABILITY OR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT THE BONDING THAT OCCURS DURING SEX.

Reward Hunter

AND....

I forgot to include also.

We all know there's no such thing as a true lesbian.

Gay men can have sex till they're old and grey.

But lesbian women often undergo what is known as "bedroom death".
Effectively where there is no longer a sense of chemistry between them, and sex or sexual enjoyment can simply not occur.
They cannot arouse themselves.

I believe nature is such that, it's the sexual aggression brought forth with the presence of testosterone, that is the actual instigator as regards sexual chemistry.

If a man isn't hungry to have sex, no chemistry will/can be present on the part of the woman.

And that's the final point I wanted to make as regards the instigation of chemistry.

There must the the male hunger and desire for sex (in conjunction with the aforementioned points) - which, let's be honest, isn't really a problem 99% of the time.

But still not something that should be overlooked.


I hope that hasn't been a ramble.

Just to reiterate again, these are simply my points of view.
I'm not like, qualified in any area so I'm not claiming them to be gospel, but in my experience, they certainly do hold water.

Wibbs

Reward Hunter wrote: »

We all know there's no such thing as a true lesbian.

Oh god... You cannot be serious. No really.

santana75

I've read The Game and various other texts on PUA and I found that it had both good and bad elements. I think the jargon for a start is insipid and comes across like it was created by a 15 year old boy. The use of canned material is cringe inducing, I mean the idea of grown men learning off or fabricating stories to impress girls is embaressing and completely artificial. The rountines and the magic tricks are pretty awful too.
But like I said there are good parts of the whole thing aswell. Guys who, for whatever reason, feared talking to women, would feel like the shackles were off and they could talk to anybody. It teaches how not to be a doormat in a relationship, to value yourself as equal to women and not put them on a pedastel. To recognise the difference between being treated well and being treated poorly, which I know seems like a bit of a no brainer, but there are lots of people(men and women)who tolerate way too much crap from the opposite sex.

In regards to the ethics question, Im not so sure PUA is unethical. To say that women are being manipulated and coerced into doing things they dont wanna do is a bit insulting to the intelligence of women. Everybody makes their own choices.

midlandsmissus

The pua online forums are absolutely shocking. One example story I read: the guy got as far as the girl sitting on the bed, he leaned in and started pressing her down and she said 'no I don't want to' and he described how he then used the pua technique of not leaning back and not pushing her further down but staying at the exact physical position he was, then vocally persuading her more, that it was alright. He got the shag, high fives from all the guys in the forum. How is this anyway moral or ethical. All it does is push weak girls into something they dont want to. That girl didnt want to, and he was congratulated for getting he to give up resisting.

leggo

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The pua online forums are absolutely shocking. One example story I read: the guy got as far as the girl sitting on the bed, he leaned in and started pressing her down and she said 'no I don't want to' and he described how he then used the pua technique of not leaning back and not pushing her further down but staying at the exact physical position he was, then vocally persuading her more, that it was alright. He got the shag, high fives from all the guys in the forum. How is this anyway moral or ethical. All it does is push weak girls into something they dont want to. That girl didnt want to, and he was congratulated for getting he to give up resisting.

I've genuinely never heard of that technique.

The catch-all technique that 99% (I can't speak for individual companies) of the community would endorse has been explained already in this. And it relies upon the fact that you're telling the girl that you completely respect her right to say no (and meaning it...there's no deception or trickery afoot here) And if she genuinely doesn't want to go further, it's impossible for it to work.

But there is a lot to be said that if people read something looking for evidence of a pre-existing notion, they'll find it.

A guy I've helped for a while had his first kiss last week, by the way. With a model no less. It's pretty much shattered any lingering beliefs that a life of lonelihood awaited. Delighted for him.

OutlawPete

I don't want clever conversation, I never want to work that hard. I just want someone that I can talk to.

Scanlas The 2nd

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The pua online forums are absolutely shocking. One example story I read: the guy got as far as the girl sitting on the bed, he leaned in and started pressing her down and she said 'no I don't want to' and he described how he then used the pua technique of not leaning back and not pushing her further down but staying at the exact physical position he was, then vocally persuading her more, that it was alright. He got the shag, high fives from all the guys in the forum. How is this anyway moral or ethical. All it does is push weak girls into something they dont want to. That girl didnt want to, and he was congratulated for getting he to give up resisting.

Never heard of a technique like that either. It's actually something standard PUA says not to do. You should never try to persuade or talk a girl into doing something as she typically will want to do it less and less.

midlandsmissus

Sorry I meant vocally persuade her more that it was alright not to do it, while staying at the exact distance so she was more likely to give in. I.e if he pushed her down further she would push him off, and if he backed away he'd lose his chance aswell. Lads it is not a good thing, It promotes manipulation, brainwashing. Saying 'we then tell it's ok if she doesn't want to' because it is ok, is bull and you know it. You've learned that off to say to a girl as you're more likely to get the shag! I.e pretending you are nice and lulling her into a false sense of security. Be honest, if you actually look at it for what it is it is wrong, deceitful, and destroys women. It makes me sad really. I actually started reading some of these websites last year after I met a guy who was very flirty but very pua. He chatted me up but then would send me texts like 'you came over and chatted me up, i cudnt get away from u!' and 'i know ur mad about me sure u chatted me up ' just to start with. Anyway I saw this guy for awhile, slept with him once, realised he was a horrible person, but he had such control over me at this stage. He was very mind****ing and doing all the negging and insults, and you know the 'you're so mad about me ul have to control urself and keep ur hands off me'. And blowing really nice to actually shockingly cruel. Anyway I looked up pua as I never met any1 like it b4 and actually nearly couldn't believe it. He fitted all the textbook pua stuff and I realised that must be what he was doing. The last time I was in bed with him before I got the strength to get away from him, I got a litl bit of power bk. Him: it's ok if you dont want to, me: grand so! Him (later on) still trying to persuade me, 'remember how good it was the one time we did it, imagine how that would
Feel right now', me 'yeah', him (quickly), 'do you want to?' me 'no'. Anyway he was a truly horrible guy and I blamed myself for a while for how bad he was treating me, he had ****ed with my mind that much. I came away from the whole thing broken.

midlandsmissus

Sorry for the block of text and splitting into two posts but I'm on a mobile. So yeah he was a shockingly cruel guy, I came away from the whole thing hurt, depressed and in bits. Please try and think about the women before you do it. It's mind control at it's worst, plainly that is what it is. You are pretending to be something you are not to get sex. You are satisfying your own desire while at the same time ruining some-one else. It actually really saddens me how quickly it took off with men, illustrating the gulf between the sexes . We are humans too, not objects to be manipulated and controlled. Try to think of it that way.

Wibbs

leggo wrote: »

I've genuinely never heard of that technique.

Me neither(though beyond reading into it a while back, I'd be outa the loop to be fair). However I have read of the "how to get the first kiss" PUA technique that involved not leaning in, but not backing away while staying close to her face and saying nothing, so maybe this gimp was freestyling on that?

That said this is a good example of why concepts like "LMR/last minute resistance" and "Slut defence" are an issue for me. Not necessarily because of the concept in of itself(though I think it needlessly simplistic), but the peddling of said concept to a certain cohort of men. Men that are getting into PUA because they've not learned how to interact with women in the first place. Men who are not socially and sexually mature(regarding women anyway). Maybe even a bit thick or even dangerously so. Like I said it's too close to "ah she really means yes when she says no". Genuine guys with some cop on will see it for what it is, but dodgy or even just stupid men are going to be more prone to reading about LMR and slut defence and taking it in a very dodgy direction.

A guy I've helped for a while had his first kiss last week, by the way. With a model no less.

I don't doubt you, but why is it always a "model" in these examples? It's such a meme in PUA circles. Dopey guy, never had any success with women + PUA company/technique/system = gets woman, not any woman either mind, a model. On US forums it's such a meme to stand above the crowd she has to be a "lingerie model". I suppose it's a step up from "swedish backpacker".

midlandsmissus wrote:

We are humans too, not objects to be manipulated and controlled. Try to think of it that way.

I agree M. I would also somewhat agree with the PUA stance that women manipulate and control men with their sexuality and access to same and are often more practiced and better at it than most men and they're seeking to help men redress that balance or even to understand that balance. Like you said though I'd agree that it does run the risk of increasing the gender divide and adding to the them and us bit.

I'd add M that the guy you describe just sounds like an ass. No PUA required, nor would I blame PUA as a concept as such. If he was using PUA that just increased his chances to be an ass in the first place, which comes back to my original point and reticence surrounding the whole LMR/slut defence meme. In any event he may have just being one of those asses who knows or learns how to manipulate women from early on. It might look like PUA, but it's not, or at least that's not where he learned this.

midlandsmissus

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The pua online forums are absolutely shocking. One example story I read: the guy got as far as the girl sitting on the bed, he leaned in and started pressing her down and she said 'no I don't want to' and he described how he then used the pua technique of not leaning back and not pushing her further down but staying at the exact physical position he was, then vocally persuading her more, that it was alright. He got the shag, high fives from all the guys in the forum. How is this anyway moral or ethical. All it does is push weak girls into something they dont want to. That girl didnt want to, and he was congratulated for getting he to give up resisting.

Its interesting though that its the posts which are "out-there" that are commented upon. I mean its not like you're going to post up about how normal people use PUA in perfectly normal situations to help themselves.

Another interesting thing for me is that many posters here that would think of any of the PUA material as being useless garbage will jump to believe the above situation. Do I believe its possible? Yup. But in 10 years of meeting people involved in PUA I've known only 5 or 6 that would be capable of using pacing, key words, tone, nlp, etc to achieve such a result. And frankly, they wouldn't be bothered. It doesn't fit with the type of environment they've built up for themselves. The guy who's being doing this for a year wouldn't be capable.. Honestly, it sounds more like bragging than a real incident.

gargleblaster

Whether or not the man midlandsmissus described was using "real" PUA techniques or not, does anyone dispute that the forums for this stuff are more encouraging than discouraging of that kind of behavior?

There seems to be a real push in this discussion to simply ignore the fact that a large portion of the people who use these techniques are being jerks about it. I doubt we'd see women here championing a system that taught women how to milk a guy out of as much money as they could get, using the logic that sure they were having a good time too so why not manipulate them a little bit to get as much as you can? And that some women just seem to naturally know how to take advantage of men but the rest deserve to be able to learn the tricks, too. Would that be acceptable and viewed as all fine and good?

IMO if the good part of this system is to survive without being demonized, then there really needs to be a schism. Those using it as pick up artists will likely never be viewed as using it for a socially acceptable reason, just as any woman using her charms to get as much cash and goodies out of men would be viewed as anything but a gold-digger.

For some reason a gold-digger is a bad thing, but a PUA is a good thing. I think they're as bad as each other. Those using this kind of information to enhance and improve their communication skills really need to branch off and rename the thing, because this stuff does seem to have been taken over by the types that most on here seem to want to casually dismiss as not being "real" PUA adherents.

RedXIV

gargleblaster wrote: »

Whether or not the man midlandsmissus described was using "real" PUA techniques or not, does anyone dispute that the forums for this stuff are more encouraging than discouraging of that kind of behavior?

Very few have disagreed with this so far

gargleblaster wrote: »

There seems to be a real push in this discussion to simply ignore the fact that a large portion of the people who use these techniques are being jerks about it.

See here's where it gets messy. How many people are using these techniques, just how many did you talk to? How many articles did you read? Lets say for talk sake you spent a day on one of these forums, might read 200 stories, maybe 1000 replies. Thats 1200 out of 3.5 BILLION men. thats pretty much the only reliable stats we have. we have no idea how many people are reading this stuff, using the stuff, abusing the stuff. But you've decided that the majority of people using it are being jerks. Unless you have valid statistics, that simply doesn't hold up.

gargleblaster wrote: »

I doubt we'd see women here championing a system that taught women how to milk a guy out of as much money as they could get, using the logic that sure they were having a good time too so why not manipulate them a little bit to get as much as you can? And that some women just seem to naturally know how to take advantage of men but the rest deserve to be able to learn the tricks, too. Would that be acceptable and viewed as all fine and good?

But as said before, women don't need a new system to even it out as you are already in the lead. Lets try a generalisation based on experience here. In MY experience, men do the approaching 99.9% of the time. Also, in MY experience, women hold most of the power in the first few moments of any interaction. Finally, and this one has been mentioned before, women already have similar things in your own magazines. Ye do. I have a Cosmo in my car from my OH and have read an article entitled "How to get the guy to notice you". Its there in black and white. The fairer sex's tricks of the trade.

gargleblaster wrote: »

IMO if the good part of this system is to survive without being demonized, then there really needs to be a schism. Those using it as pick up artists will likely never be viewed as using it for a socially acceptable reason, just as any woman using her charms to get as much cash and goodies out of men would be viewed as anything but a gold-digger.

The problem here is anytime someone wants to come up with a "nice" version, accepted by women on how to go about their love life, it simply doesn't work. Our minds work in different ways. Our life experiences are different. Its very clear that most women seem to think that "Be yourself" and "make her laugh" is all the advice a guy needs when it comes to trying to attract a member of the opposite sex but in reality, thats beyond useless, its insulting. The reason why PUA is so popular with men and so UNpopular with women is down to the fact that the stuff works, it hits primal levers that women have forgotten they have and its not in keeping with the almost unanimous fairytale ideal.

gargleblaster wrote: »

For some reason a gold-digger is a bad thing, but a PUA is a good thing. I think they're as bad as each other. Those using this kind of information to enhance and improve their communication skills really need to branch off and rename the thing, because this stuff does seem to have been taken over by the types that most on here seem to want to casually dismiss as not being "real" PUA adherents.

Its very easy to go looking for the bad aspects of something to put forward an argument. For example, feminism, the initial premise behind it of equality, fought for by women is fantastic. However, a quick search will bring you to sites where men are viewed as inferior beings by "feminists".

gargleblaster

RedXIV wrote: »

Very few have disagreed with this so far

Fair enough, it didn't seem that way to me. It seemed to me that it was just brushed off or ignored.

See here's where it gets messy. How many people are using these techniques, just how many did you talk to? How many articles did you read? Lets say for talk sake you spent a day on one of these forums, might read 200 stories, maybe 1000 replies. Thats 1200 out of 3.5 BILLION men. thats pretty much the only reliable stats we have. we have no idea how many people are reading this stuff, using the stuff, abusing the stuff. But you've decided that the majority of people using it are being jerks. Unless you have valid statistics, that simply doesn't hold up.

That is a very good point, however what else have we got to go on but our experiences and the evidence we see? If we go by these forums, and women's experience, there's only the negative showing up.

Or ok, not "only", just mostly. Because after I read this thread I did do some reading, and I did see a few men speaking up against those men who were being jerks. They were mostly shouted down though, called "naturals" who just didnt' understand how these other men simply had to be jerks in order to get their holes.

But as said before, women don't need a new system to even it out as you are already in the lead. Lets try a generalisation based on experience here. In MY experience, men do the approaching 99.9% of the time. Also, in MY experience, women hold most of the power in the first few moments of any interaction. Finally, and this one has been mentioned before, women already have similar things in your own magazines. Ye do. I have a Cosmo in my car from my OH and have read an article entitled "How to get the guy to notice you". Its there in black and white. The fairer sex's tricks of the trade.

We're not talking about getting attention. PUAs are mostly only interested in getting their hole, as it were. Gold diggers would be the appropriate analogy IMO, not women who just want to catch a man's eye. Women who just want attention are analogous to those men using these techniques to simply talk to women. (Not to get kisses from "models" - *eyeroll*)

The problem here is anytime someone wants to come up with a "nice" version, accepted by women on how to go about their love life, it simply doesn't work. Our minds work in different ways. Our life experiences are different. Its very clear that most women seem to think that "Be yourself" and "make her laugh" is all the advice a guy needs when it comes to trying to attract a member of the opposite sex but in reality, thats beyond useless, its insulting. The reason why PUA is so popular with men and so UNpopular with women is down to the fact that the stuff works, it hits primal levers that women have forgotten they have and its not in keeping with the almost unanimous fairytale ideal.

The nice version would be the one for men to just get a woman to talk to them, not manipulate if not outright coerce them into bed or into being a party to a MLTR with no knowledge that that is what's going on, thinking she's actually in a relationship with a real human being. And I'll say again that if these men are honest about what they're up to then no problem, fair play. But that's not what I've experienced, nor have I ever met another woman who was happy being part of a MLTR.

Its very easy to go looking for the bad aspects of something to put forward an argument. For example, feminism, the initial premise behind it of equality, fought for by women is fantastic. However, a quick search will bring you to sites where men are viewed as inferior beings by "feminists".

I don't think I'm looking for the bad aspects. They bit me on the ass, personally. And what do I see here but women saying that if a woman does get played, well that's her fault. It's infuriating!

I don't think that most feminist websites have women saying that men are inferior. And I think if you took a look you'd see that as opposed to the manipulative jerk-like behavior that's high-fived on PUA forums, the women in those forums would be more opposed than encouraging to women who were of the opinion that men are somehow inferior.

RedXIV

gargleblaster wrote: »

Fair enough, it didn't seem that way to me. It seemed to me that it was just brushed off or ignored.

No, we don't ignore makes it too hard to have a decent debate if you do.

gargleblaster wrote: »

That is a very good point, however what else have we got to go on but our experiences and the evidence we see? If we go by these forums, and women's experience, there's only the negative showing up.

But if you go by the experiences of the MEN on these forums (in this thread in particular) you'll find the vast majority in favour of this but NOT to the extremes documented on other sites. If you search for PUA on these boards, there's at least 5 threads that I know of and all have been lengthy, mainly due to the debate of the fact that not everyone see's them as negative

gargleblaster wrote: »

Or ok, not "only", just mostly. Because after I read this thread I did do some reading, and I did see a few men speaking up against those men who were being jerks. They were mostly shouted down though, called "naturals" who just didnt' understand how these other men simply had to be jerks in order to get their holes.

But again, as I said, there will always be jerks and unfortunately, there will be a few who might misinterpret what is being taught, HOWEVER, If someone is a jerk using this PUA stuff, thats not because the PUA stuff turned him into a jerk. He wasn't soul of chivalry before hand. Likewise that makeup doesn't alter you're personality. It can help boost your confidence but it doesn't change you from a nice person to an asshole or vice versa

gargleblaster wrote: »

We're not talking about getting attention. PUAs are talking about getting their hole, as it were. Gold diggers would be the appropriate analogy IMO, not women who just want to catch a man's eye.

In fairness, if it were just about getting your hole, gold diggers wouldn't be a correct analogy as they are looking for a long-term parasitic relationship. PUA is about generally about improving your ability to attract someone. Make up, fashion etc would do the same for women, i.e. it would present you in a more attractive way.

gargleblaster wrote: »

The nice version would be the one for men to just get a woman to talk to them, not manipulate if not outright coerce them into bed or into being a party to a MLTR with no knowledge that that is what's going on, thinking she's actually in a relationship with a real human being.

Once again, alot of PUA is as you described above. Simple things like how to engage a conversation, how to have an interesting conversation, how to become better at presenting yourself. I'd like to highlight again that this is something I actively took part in and at no stage was it my desire to manipulate or coerce someone into bed. That statement you made does make us out to sound like rapists which is a tad unfair.

gargleblaster wrote: »

I don't think I'm looking for the bad aspects. They bit me on the ass, personally. And what do I see here but women saying that if a woman does get played, well that's her fault. It's infuriating!

I haven't seen that here? From what has been said so far, according to the women at least, is that the majority agree that there is no way in hell women would fall for this. It appears to be more a woman's perspective that if she falls for it, its her own fault. The form of PUA we're promoting isn't about tricking someone into bed, its about self confidence and personal growth. If a woman has a problem with that, then to be honest, surely the man would be better off without her?

gargleblaster wrote: »

I don't think that most feminist websites have women saying that men are inferior. And I think if you took a look you'd see that as opposed to the manipulative jerk-like behavior that's high fived on PUA forums, the women in those forums would be more opposed than encouraging to women who were of the opinion that men are somehow inferior.

Yes but on the same point, you will find women who defend their ideals religious and refuse point blank to give up their ridiculous notions. Similar to extreme PUA practicioners, both of these have taken something good and simply gone too far. I'm not excusing the extreme PUA 'gurus', I'm simply saying don't fall into the trap of generalisation.

gargleblaster

RedXIV wrote: »

No, we don't ignore makes it too hard to have a decent debate if you do.

True.

But if you go by the experiences of the MEN on these forums (in this thread in particular) you'll find the vast majority in favour of this but NOT to the extremes documented on other sites. If you search for PUA on these boards, there's at least 5 threads that I know of and all have been lengthy, mainly due to the debate of the fact that not everyone see's them as negative

Yes, I would agree that in this thread it's much different to what I saw elsewhere. I didn't look for other discussions here, but I find it logical to think the same would hold true there.

But again, as I said, there will always be jerks and unfortunately, there will be a few who might misinterpret what is being taught, HOWEVER, If someone is a jerk using this PUA stuff, thats not because the PUA stuff turned him into a jerk. He wasn't soul of chivalry before hand. Likewise that makeup doesn't alter you're personality. It can help boost your confidence but it doesn't change you from a nice person to an asshole or vice versa

That's a very good point as well. I simply wish there were more men on those forums shouting the jerks down, instead of vice versa.

In fairness, if it were just about getting your hole, gold diggers wouldn't be a correct analogy as they are looking for a long-term parasitic relationship. PUA is about generally about improving your ability to attract someone. Make up, fashion etc would do the same for women, i.e. it would present you in a more attractive way.

Well I wasn't talking about the duration of the relationship, such as it is. Simply the nature of it. Parasitic/manipulative vs. genuine.

Once again, alot of PUA is as you described above. Simple things like how to engage a conversation, how to have an interesting conversation, how to become better at presenting yourself. I'd like to highlight again that this is something I actively took part in and at no stage was it my desire to manipulate or coerce someone into bed. That statement you made does make us out to sound like rapists which is a tad unfair.

I certainly didn't mean to imply they were all rapists. However that stuff about LMR and slut defenses and all that crap is just way the hell over the line IMO. That, no one could dress up as simply a way to get to talk to a woman, or to be more interesting. That is a way to get their hole and there is no way around that. That's why I think a schism would do a hell of a lot of good. Also just the term 'pick up artist' carries baggage. A man who just wants to be interesting, good at conversing, and present himself better - that's not wanting to pick up loads of women, which is what the term PUA implies IMO.

I haven't seen that here? From what has been said so far, according to the women at least, is that the majority agree that there is no way in hell women would fall for this. It appears to be more a woman's perspective that if she falls for it, its her own fault. The form of PUA we're promoting isn't about tricking someone into bed, its about self confidence and personal growth. If a woman has a problem with that, then to be honest, surely the man would be better off without her?

Yes, it's definitely coming from women that I've seen and I find it highly offensive. To me that's no different than saying gold-diggers are fine and dandy cause sure the man should see her true colors and if he doesn't then tough ****.

And yes, if the man isn't using this to be a pick up artist but rather to improve himself, then that's an entirely different thing than what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what most of the guys in the forums seem to be after, and that's lots of sex with hotter women. (Which here again I think fits my analogy of a woman wanting lots of money from rich men.)

Yes but on the same point, you will find women who defend their ideals religious and refuse point blank to give up their ridiculous notions. Similar to extreme PUA practicioners, both of these have taken something good and simply gone too far. I'm not excusing the extreme PUA 'gurus', I'm simply saying don't fall into the trap of generalisation.

I agree that there are extremists are on both sides, that's obviously quite true. My problem is with the fact that one version of extremist doesn't seem to get shouted down as often. That is how it seemed to me from what I saw on various forums.

Morag

An awful lot of what Reward Hunter has posted seems to be right out of 'Mystery's' book which was published in 2007.

http://jezebel.com/5820520/an-academic-approach-to-creepy-pickup-artists

An Academic Approach To Creepy Pickup Artists

Anna North — Plenty of people have called pickup artists creepy, but few have embarked on a full theoretical analysis of their creepitude. Now, a communications researcher does just that. Herewith, her breakdown of how Mystery twists evolutionary psychology to his own coercive ends.

Amanda Denes is a graduate student in Communications at UCSB. In a recent paper, she sets herself the unenviable task of reading all off The Mystery Method: How To Get Beautiful Women Into Bed and analyzing it from biological, cultural, sociological, and rhetorical point of view. Some highlights:
On Cat Theory

Mystery's animal metaphors [...] depict female sexuality as controllable. This point is exemplifed in Mystery's (2007) presentation of what he calls "Cat Theory," in which he explains that women are like cats because they do not take orders, but can be tempted to chase. They also like shiny new things, crave attention, can become jealous, and rub against you and purr when they like you (Mystery, 2007). Such metaphors are present throughout the text, with men constantly being encouraged to "train" the women they are pursuing and to reward positive behavior and punish negative behavior.

On oxytocin

Together, the work on oxytocin has led some researchers to suggest that the hormone serves an important function in individuals' relationship development and maintenance (Bartz & Hollander, 2006). While such work on oxytocin has largely suggested that the hormone has positive benefits in relationship development, the PUA community seems to be suggesting that such responses be manipulated to get women into bed, not necessarily to form healthy relationships. Mystery (2007) seems to appropriate much of the oxytocin literature to his method, suggesting a process of "kino escalation" (increased touch) to build a trusting base [to eventually get women into bed] (p. 123).

On women's thoughts and feelings

Mystery (2007) refers to all humans as "creatures of sentiment," but explains that a woman's "emotions are at the center of her thoughts and actions" (p. 24). Thus, he argues that logic should never be used to pick up women "... because what a woman thinks she likes, or says she likes, is not necessarily what she responds to in reality" (Mystery, 2007, p. 24). This base allows Mystery (2007) to make arguments for why women's rational thoughts (and words) should be disregarded and women's bodily responses should be the focus. In this way, Mystery (2007) conceptualizes emotional experiences as coming from the body and logic as coming from the mind. He then argues that the emotional, bodily experience provides a more accurate assessment of a woman's interest and later, her willingness to have sex. Mystery (2007) not only implies that the body should be believed over logic, but that women do not even have the capacity for logical interpretations.

On the "flow of kino"

As Mystery (2007) trumps the body as truth, he is also dually encouraging readers to manipulate bodily reactions. Mystery (2007) encourages the use of kinesthetics/"kino" to help comfort a woman. Kino focuses on touching, and is encouraged from the moment people meet so that touch will not appear inappropriate in greater degrees later in the seduction. "Instead, there is a natural flow of kino from the very early stages of the set that leads all the way to the sex" (Mystery, 2007, p. 137). Mystery (2007) is telling his readers to create a reaction and then to privilege the created reaction as truth. In other words, he offers his readers tricks on how to seduce women through touch, and then suggests that if these tricks work and the woman does become aroused, that this is a sign of sexual interest and implied consent.

On no meaning yes

An important part of Mystery's (2007) seduction manual is convincing readers that no woman can resist the methods presented in the text. Therefore, any resistance that a woman might demonstrate is never to be taken as legitimate, but rather, as token resistance (saying no to sex when meaning yes). Mystery (2007) explains that token resistance is part of a woman's "anti-slut defense," meaning that women want to have sex, but do not want to appear promiscuous (p. 28). In this text, all resistance is conceptualized as token resistance, as a woman "wants things to happen, but she wants it to feel right and she doesn't want it to be her fault" (Mystery, 2007, p. 148). This approach instills in the audience a belief that these techniques guarantee sexual desire from a woman, and that even if a woman says no, she really means yes.

On ignoring everything she says

Mystery (2007) depicts a woman's lack of clearly signaling non-consent as approval to move forward. He tells readers, "If you're undressing her and she says, ‘We should stop,' just agree with her... and then keep going. ‘I know, baby,' you reply as you continue to undress her. ‘We should stop'" (p. 202). Here, Mystery (2007) again suggests ignoring verbal communication entirely, implying that, unless physical force is used to stop the behavior, the woman is consenting to the activity. Thus, verbal resistance is ignored as pressure to have sex increases.

On making it hard to say no

The ability and decision to resist sexual activity may become dif␣cult with the escalation of foreplay, or "kino escalation" (Mystery, 2007, p. 123). O'Sullivan and Allgeier (1998) assert that "the nonverbal nature of most sexual interactions may inhibit verbal expressions of reluctance, and the ever-increasing levels of physical contact and intimacy may obscure less overt physical attempts to resist" (p. 234). Combined with Mystery's (2007) continual suggestion to disregard verbal responses and proceed forward with physical affection, signs of resistance are largely ignored in the Mystery Method.

Denes writes that Mystery's book "promotes the false idea that women's sexuality is both uniform and controllable, and thus that with the appropriate techniques women can be persuaded to engage in sexual activity." She cautions that "presenting such incorrect concepts as facts to large audiences may increase women's risk of nonconsensual or forced sexual activity." So if you spot someone reading The Mystery Method, you might suggest they take a look at Denes's paper instead.

midlandsmissus

'How to get a guy to notice you' is fairly different from how to fake everything about your personality to brainwash a woman into bed. The golddigger analogy is correct. I've tried to explain this to men before, how it feels to be duped into sex, and the golddigger analogy was the only one that got across, as men seem to feel the same about being duped out of loads of money as we do about being duped into sex. Imagine you met a girl who you really liked, you trusted her and fell for her, then she weaseled you into buying her loads of things, the minute you did, she laughed at you and left you. You had been manipulated by some-one to get their own means and then left with not a care for you. I hope this goes some way to explaining how we feel when we are lied to, manipulated and mentally controlled into having sex by some-one who pretends to be a nice guy. Please, please try and see it from the other side. I know we have very different brains, but I'm trying to find common ground for us.

RedXIV

midlandsmissus wrote: »

'How to get a guy to notice you' is fairly different from how to fake everything about your personality to brainwash a woman into bed. The golddigger analogy is correct. I've tried to explain this to men before, how it feels to be duped into sex, and the golddigger analogy was the only one that got across, as men seem to feel the same about being duped out of loads of money as we do about being duped into sex. Imagine you met a girl who you really liked, you trusted her and fell for her, then she weaseled you into buying her loads of things, the minute you did, she laughed at you and left you. You had been manipulated by some-one to get their own means and then left with not a care for you. I hope this goes some way to explaining how we feel when we are lied to, manipulated and mentally controlled into having sex by some-one who pretends to be a nice guy. Please, please try and see it from the other side. I know we have very different brains, but I'm trying to find common ground for us.

I'm really not trying to argue with you about the extreme end of it, i've already noted my own disapproval of it.

If I may use another metaphor, PUA is like martial arts, and i've studied both. In both you learn alot of skills and you apply them as you see fit. In martial arts this meant that even though I know how to kill someone and I have the skills to do it, I choose not to. Similarly, I read alot of stuff about 'manipulating' women, but I choose not to. Both of these two areas taught me things I do use and that many will use, but most people won't go to the extremes.

All I want is for ye to realise that PUA doesn't automatically mean asshole or trickster. Its an unfortunate name for a process that actually helps alot of people become happier in themselves which is the only 'trick' they wanted from it

Reward Hunter

Sharrow wrote: »

An awful lot of what Reward Hunter has posted seems to be right out of 'Mystery's' book which was published in 2007.

http://jezebel.com/5820520/an-academic-approach-to-creepy-pickup-artists

I don't know about any of that.

I read about that oxytocin thing on some random page, and it struck me as being concrete, to some degree at least.

Firstly, one thing all PUA adherents generally agree on, is that..

WOMEN ARE THE WORST SOURCES OF ADVICE AS REGARDS HOW TO PICK UP OTHER WOMEN.

There's allot of jargon and spoof.

As has been commented on I'd say about 100x in this thread already, most of that serves as a means to get confidence up as regards making an initial approach.

I think what PUA boils down or, or will boil down to as it becomes more accepted and widespread (on an "underground" level, even) is that effectively, in the past, men have never endeavored to accentuate their own sexuality or be accepting, on a personal level even, of gaining an understanding of how to accentuate themselves in a sexual sense, and this leaves women with a massive area of leverage over us.

Having money, power, good looks, confidence etc etc.
All of them things, IMO, basically translate linearly into one thing - sexual appeal (unless a woman is a total gold digger, but a guy would have to be a real blank to be vulnerable to this kind), and this is the fundamental area of attraction.


I can't even imagine bringing up the topic of how "sexy" various men are, say for example, in the gym locker room.
I'd probably get banned, or get a beating, or both.

But for women, it's perfectly acceptable to discuss this openly, at least among themselves.
This lends itself to a greater understanding, I believe (intuitively obvious actually), of the mentality of the opposite sex, perceptions of them, and how they feel we perceive them etc.
Which in turn lends itself to a more well informed and calculated approach.
For women, this translates as effectiveness = empowerment.

Thus, referring back to my initial point, this gives women a massive area of leverage, in the sexual sense, over men.

PUA - more so the concepts and "rules of the game", as oppose to the actual scenarios etc - is effectively leveling the playing field, to some degree at least.


I don't think guys may ever speak completely openly about this type of thing amongst each other.
Perhaps it just won't ever be entirely socially acceptable.

Much the same way as it's generally socially unacceptable for a girl to be promiscuous.
But that doesn't mean it won't happen at all, and more often than not, with a guy who does present any form of sexual appeal, he will have engaged in it and gained and understanding - but much like the promiscuous woman - he'll almost certainly deny it.

guitarzero

Just gonna say I havent read any of the posts but I'll go ahead. I havent read the game but have a fair idea of what its about. What I will say is when a girl meets a guy, he's lying to you to varying levels, from extreme to utter black lies. He's already using his own inner game so to speak. He's getting into a character that he believes you will like, kinda like that NLP anchoring thing, maybe.
He'll trun on his charm, listen to what you have to say, manufacture a response that is entirely made by one goal - sex. Now, why women cry about this crap I dont know cuz I dont see whats to cry about 2 people having an orgasm other than maybe tears of joy.

So, The Game could be seen as an upgrade in his lying to you. For the most part lies are important in order for people to practically exist, if you sought the truth about how your job was merely endorsing endless consumerism which inturn destroys the planet, you may feel thwarted in yourself about what you do for a profesion, blah blah.

Women do the same with men, lie, lots of them, but mostly INTO the relationship. But they've never had to sharpen their game as its pretty much down to men to do all the hard work while you present the jump hoops. Thats kinda whats going on. Its the hurdles that women throw up that men have to jump. So men have to train, learn how to be funny, interesting, charismatic, all this without being to strange, to full of himself, too this and that and the other. I dont think a relationship is about meeting eachother, I truly think its about what we can get out of eachother.

So as for ethics I think its entirely about what both get out of it. If he charms you, makes you feel good, shows you a good time then whats the harm? With my X I behaved like a charming angel when we met, 3 months in I slowly turned back into me again which happens a lot. But we both had a good time, at times. If one ends up getting hurt or at a severe loss in anyway then The Game was used for the ill.

So just try and see the game as the manual of a good student. Someone who will go to great lengths to sleep with you because he thinks your pretty good looking, no harm there.

Scanlas The 2nd

gargleblaster wrote: »

And yes, if the man isn't using this to be a pick up artist but rather to improve himself, then that's an entirely different thing than what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what most of the guys in the forums seem to be after, and that's lots of sex with hotter women. QUOTE]

Let's be under no illusions here. PUA is primarily about improving a man's abilites and options with women. In order to do that as best he can a man must improve himself in areas that will also benefit others areas of his life. I agree most men into PUA would be after sex with lots of hot women but there are also those who just want a quality girlfriend or wife. I don't see what's wrong with wanting the ability to have lots of sex with hotter women. It's a natural instinct for most men to want to have sex with lots of hot women and that's never going to change. PUA is about making yourself more attractive so women want to have sex with you, no trickery required. Also if a man tells a woman he wants to have an open relationship with her and he'll see other women I don't see what's the problem. No one is holding a gun to her head, she can walk away if she wants.

Wibbs

Reward Hunter wrote: »

WOMEN ARE THE WORST SOURCES OF ADVICE AS REGARDS HOW TO PICK UP OTHER WOMEN.

I would agree, but would also add men aren't exactly towering paragons of advice in how to attract them either. "Be yourself" is also a common enough meme. Men just happen to be easier to pick up so this disparity is not as obvious.

I think what PUA boils down or, or will boil down to as it becomes more accepted and widespread (on an "underground" level, even) is that effectively, in the past, men have never endeavored to accentuate their own sexuality or be accepting, on a personal level even, of gaining an understanding of how to accentuate themselves in a sexual sense, and this leaves women with a massive area of leverage over us.

I would disagree myself. How to pick up women is a common enough meme in history. How to make yourself attractive as a man is also common enough. What is for me different currently is that the playing field has been upset in the last few generations. Not too long ago even the sorriest example of manhood had a chance to hook up, settle down and reproduce. Men were in the societal driving seat as far as control of resources so that gave them currency. Now that more and more women have that control, more and more men are being judged on their merits. Or at least more than in the past. Add in that more and more men and women are hanging out together as friends, more men never learn how to make the leap to lovers.

But for women, it's perfectly acceptable to discuss this openly, at least among themselves.
This lends itself to a greater understanding, I believe (intuitively obvious actually), of the mentality of the opposite sex, perceptions of them, and how they feel we perceive them etc.
Which in turn lends itself to a more well informed and calculated approach.
For women, this translates as effectiveness = empowerment.

Yes and no. Though it's often said that women have a greater understanding of how attractive another woman is to men, I'd say they can be extremely inaccurate in my experience. How many blokes have heard "oh you should see X, she's only gooooorgeous", only to meet X and ask internally "are they casting for a remake of Creature from the Black Lagoon".

I would agree and say women put much more focus into thinking about romantic relationships than men and from an earlier age. They talk about it among themselves and judge each other n their successes and failures more. Relationships(and not just sexual) are more a subject of convo than in a group of men.

I don't think guys may ever speak completely openly about this type of thing amongst each other.

About relationships? Yep they do. Well my mates would. About how one guy gets more women than another? Again yep. Now that may just be my experience and yes they do it less than my women mates would, but I doubt I'm alone in that. Though I would say that among the younger men I know they would seem to talk about it less than a generation ago.

TBH Reward Hunter you had me when you earlier claimed there were no such things as true lesbians. That notion (and I've heard it before) is so cliched of a certain kind of thinking its not funny. Other examples would be "lesbians are unattractive women that turn to each other because no man would have them".

gargleblaster

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Let's be under no illusions here. PUA is primarily about improving a man's abilites and options with women. In order to do that as best he can a man must improve himself in areas that will also benefit others areas of his life. I agree most men into PUA would be after sex with lots of hot women but there are also those who just want a quality girlfriend or wife. I don't see what's wrong with wanting the ability to have lots of sex with hotter women. It's a natural instinct for most men to want to have sex with lots of hot women and that's never going to change. PUA is about making yourself more attractive so women want to have sex with you, no trickery required. Also if a man tells a woman he wants to have an open relationship with her and he'll see other women I don't see what's the problem. No one is holding a gun to her head, she can walk away if she wants.

It's a natural instinct for women to want to get a rich man, too. If you see nothing wrong with that then fair enough.

As for men being honest about sleeping around, as I said, as long as they're above board then more power to them. However, that does not usually seem to be the case, hence PUA's and players' reputations as undesirables.

As for what Sharrow posted, none of that is about being able to communicate with women for the sake of building relationships. It is for the purpose of getting laid. It treats women not as people, not as individuals, but as holes. Just as a gold-digger treats men not as people, but as wallets.

Scanlas The 2nd

gargleblaster wrote: »

It's a natural instinct for women to want to get a rich man, too. If you see nothing wrong with that then fair enough.

As for men being honest about sleeping around, as I said, as long as they're above board then more power to them. However, that does not usually seem to be the case, hence PUA's and players' reputations as undesirables.

As for what Sharrow posted, none of that is about being able to communicate with women for the sake of building relationships. It is for the purpose of getting laid. It treats women not as people, not as individuals, but as holes. Just as a gold-digger treats men not as people, but as wallets.

There's nothing wrong with a woman wanting a rich man, that's her preference. The "Mystery Method", which is outdated now, is exciting, emotionally stimulating and thouroughly enjoyable for women when a man applies it well chatting up women. I've read the book several times and it never mentions anywhere to deceive women or to cause them any sort of distress unless I missed something. Just because you are using the "Mystery Method" doesn't mean you must see women as merely holes. There's whole sections in it on building a connection. If a man chooses to fake all that that's up to him.

Also if a man only sees women as holes that's up to him and I don't see anything wrong with that so long as he doesn't intentionally deceive women, likewise there's nothing wrong imo with a woman seeing a man as merely a penis to have fun with. Saying that I think any man with that outlook is missing out.

What PUAs do you know who aren't honest about sleeping around? Have you ever come across a PUA?

gargleblaster

gargleblaster wrote: »

As for men being honest about sleeping around, as I said, as long as they're above board then more power to them. However, that does not usually seem to be the case, hence PUA's and players' reputations as undesirables.

The reputation as undesirables doesn't stem from that but more from fear and ignorance (more ignorance than fear imo). Take a number of female posters here who have latched onto the purely negative aspects of PUA. They're unable to see beyond these negatives and see anything positive. Never mind that the chances of them being on the receiving end of such tactics are slim (since most Irish guys I know think they're above learning to be better).

The really funny thing I find about certain womens attitudes to PUA is that when I bought the Karma Sutra, the lovers guide (most parts), tantric love, etc. female friends were happy to give approval that I was bettering myself and aiming to make girls feel better during sex. --- But if you mention PUA, then those same girls are unable to see that PUA provides essentially the same thing, just without the sex. (although if you explain all of PUA without actually saying those three letters, you're likely to get approval. The Game has a lot to answer for in creating waves of stupidity in the masses)

One more thing worth saying. PUA is not The Game. There is more to PUA than mystery, or any single player out there. There's too much judging of the whole area based on the beliefs of one person. I met mystery 8 years ago. I wasn't impressed. But then TBH I wasn't that impressed with Ross Jeffries until I really looked at his material and whether it was applicable to my life. Some of it was.

As for what Sharrow posted, none of that is about being able to communicate with women for the sake of building relationships. It is for the purpose of getting laid. It treats women not as people, not as individuals, but as holes. Just as a gold-digger treats men not as people, but as wallets.

Mystery always wanted to get laid. He promoted the fact. He never hid it.

I could post parts of different manuals from a host of other "guru's" which offer a vastly different view but it wouldn't change anything for you. You believe PUA is entirely about having sex and objectifying women. I believe PUA is about learning about yourself, and giving women more pleasure from a psychological pov. The only real difference is that I've participated in PUA (or speed seduction), and seen what it actually offers an individual.

You see i made the change.. I am a geeky looking guy. 6ft3inches, skinny, no muscle (high metabolism which makes it next to impossible for me to add weight), and i have a shaking condition called essential tremor. I've had that condition since I was 13, which you can imagine has had some impact on my ability to talk (and flirt) with girls. I found Speed Seduction (or PUA as its mostly called now) when I was 23. Just after university. Until that time I'd never had a successful relationship, and my sex had been relegated to random couplings after nightclubs. I first found David DeAngelo (rubbish), then Seduction.Alt.fast (awful material), then a book by Copeland which was interesting but mostly mainstream dating advice, and then Ross Jeffries (who taught mystery and a few others). RJ led me into finding other material not solely focused on SS/PUA but related. RJ's earlier material is retarded material solely about getting laid using idiotic phrases, neg hits etc. After a while, he moved more into NLP, meditation, and giving more than receiving. About the seduction being about the woman not about getting laid. And it struck a cord in me.

And now, roughly 11 years later, I'm still a rather geeky looking guy with a shaking condition who has absolute confidence knowing that I can bring pleasure to a woman both through conversation and in the bedroom. You have absolutely no idea the impact Speed Seduction has had on my life from both a personal and professional aspect, and you also have no idea of how much happiness I have brought to other people as a result of it. I have my own mantra of doing no harm. I got that from RJ, and it works. So.. before you relegate all people who participate in PUA/SS as being sex hungry maniacs, then think again. Lastly, when I started SS i did want to get laid... and I did. A lot. And then I got bored with sex, and dated just to enjoy being with a woman.

Frankly I have to wonder how much you understand about how men feel about sex. Its only when we're not getting any that its so important. When we know we can get it, it doesn't really matter so much. PUA/SS gives us the chance to experience that.

leggo

Sorry, I can't deal with reading a bunch of quote-unquote posts, so I've skimmed a lot after reading the initial posts following my last one. Apologies if I cover something that's already been covered.

Wibbs, the only reason that I added she was a model is because of the effect it will have on this bloke in the future. In reality, there's no extra prestige to pulling a model or a 'normal' girl. At the end of the day, we all just want is someone that we're attracted to personally and build a connection with. But the reason THIS is important is because now the guy can't put it down to dumb luck. The girl asked him out to the club that night...she essentially chased him. Next time he attempts to seduce a girl, he won't be demonised by the old doubts and insecurities (I don't deserve this, I'm going to die alone etc) because there'll be one shining example which will spur him onwards and push him towards achieving the life he wants. The 'model' part means nothing to me...but EVERYTHING to him. Make sense?

To the girl who encountered a manipulative guy using this material: I feel sorry for you encountering ANY manipulative man who toyed with your heart. That's never nice.

However, as discussed towards the beginning of this debate, you can't hold Einstein responsible for the atomic bomb. This information is freely available online and in relatively cheap books...anyone can have access to it. And, the fact that you feel so strongly about it, shows that it works. So put that power in the hands of someone who is already manipulative and you have a recipe for disaster. But you can't blame the information itself. That's like a kid blaming gangster rap or video games for shooting up his school. At some stage you have to blame the people responsible for not controlling and contextualising that that influences their lives.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 95% of men who came to me for help genuinely wanted to simply find a girlfriend. That was it. I've taught a considerable amount of people and I can only think of ONE who, so to speak, used his powers for evil (I stopped helping him when I saw he was doing this).

I recognise it's easier for you to demonise the entire community for your experience. It takes the sting out of it. Makes it a little less personal. If women everywhere are 'falling' for this, like you did, you don't feel as foolish. Well, if it helps, every single woman that I know has encountered a similar type of man at one stage or another. Not a PUA, but just a manipulative, deceitful liar who has toyed with their heart. What's the phrase, "For every b!tch there's a man who made her that way..."? So there's no shame in falling for this. Ultimately, we all have to experience disappointments in love, and that just spurs us on to find what we DO want, based on finding out what we DON'T first. You'll be fine. But lying to yourself and saying that all PUAs are evil could come back to haunt you when you reject what could be a perfectly well-intentioned gentleman telling you your nose wiggles when you talk in a bar down the line.

The one aspect of the community I have a major problem with is the glorification of a particular lifestyle. It was ultimately the reason I distanced myself from it: because a lot of companies seemed to promote having MLTRs (multiple long-term relationships, where the woman are consensual to this) as the only way to go. They should just teach the information and let men figure out their own path. If they MUST attach a lifestyle to it, make it a morally upstanding one (e.g. one of my most well-received articles was entitled 'You Don't HAVE To Be A Pr!ck').

But do you know what I did when I didn't like that aspect? I decided it wasn't for me and moved on along my own way with the information in mind. Because I can think for myself.

And, if I hadn't, *I* should be the only one blamed for doing so. After all, another central theme of the community is that the woman who rejects you is NEVER to blame (or else what can you change in the future?). You figure out what YOU did wrong, personally, and move forward. And that applies just as much for evaluating what you wish to use this material for as anything else.

gargleblaster

klaz you must not be reading my posts, because I've said repeatedly that I do see the positive aspects. What I can't seem to understand is why so many men seem so confused and befuddled by the fact that most women see this stuff as negative. No, we can't blame Einstein for the atomic bomb. But we can't say 'oh, you anti nuclear energy activists just don't get it'. And it's a flawed analogy anyway, because nuclear weapons technology is indeed very separate from nuclear energy technology. Whereas PUAs are all just PUAs. And most seem very happy about that and see no need to separate themselves somehow from the PUAs.

As for your personal story, trust me, I get it. From my perspective, you sound similar to the PUA I had the misfortune to get involved with, physically speaking. 6' 4", geeky, only by the time I met him he was nearly 30. I only found out after a month of dating that I was part of a handful of girls he was 'dating', and that he and his friend had a bet going to see how many different women they could **** by such-and-such date.

leggo

gargleblaster wrote: »

klaz you must not be reading my posts, because I've said repeatedly that I do see the positive aspects. What I can't seem to understand is why so many men seem so confused and befuddled by the fact that most women see this stuff as negative. No, we can't blame Einstein for the atomic bomb. But we can't say 'oh, you anti nuclear energy activists just don't get it'. And it's a flawed analogy anyway, because nuclear weapons technology is indeed very separate from nuclear energy technology. Whereas PUAs are all just PUAs. And most seem very happy about that and see no need to separate themselves somehow from the PUAs.

The sentence in bold illustrates perfectly the massive gap in your logic.

If someone referred to himself a PUA, why would he then go and separate himself from being called a PUA?! (Since you're implying he should)

Don't get me wrong, I understand WHY women are so offended by the idea of this stuff, I've had this discussion a million times before. I just think that they are wrong to be offended by it because, crucially, every woman I know who disagrees with it follows the same line of thinking on the matter that you do: that it is a device used to manipulate and deceive women into bed.

Whereas if you actually approached the subject with open eyes you'd see that the individual women themselves are inconsequential to the entire process. It's a method designed with self-improvement on the MAN'S part in mind. Women across the globe still have as much free will and choice in the mating process as they've always had (in modern society). The only difference is that this information now enables some men, who previously wouldn't have had the above choice, to do so.

gargleblaster

gargleblaster wrote: »

klaz you must not be reading my posts, because I've said repeatedly that I do see the positive aspects.

Actually I have read your posts. While you might believe that you have been acknowledging the positive aspects, the tone of your language constantly undermines that assertion.

What I can't seem to understand is why so many men seem so confused and befuddled by the fact that most women see this stuff as negative.

We're not confused by that. Actually, I'm not confused about it at all. I know why women see the negatives. People fear two main things. Loss of control, and what they don't understand. Most women know nothing about PUA. Just some random gossip or internet complaints, and have decided that PUA is a threat to them. Secondly PUA offers men the freedom to gain some control over the dating process, which traditionally has been completely held by Irish girls.

No, we can't blame Einstein for the atomic bomb. But we can't say 'oh, you anti nuclear energy activists just don't get it'. And it's a flawed analogy anyway, because nuclear weapons technology is indeed very separate from nuclear energy technology. Whereas PUAs are all just PUAs. And most seem very happy about that and see no need to separate themselves somehow from the PUAs.

The analogy is wrong firstly because you're not blaming a key figure in the development of Speed Seduction/PUA, you're blaming the whole concept. Like blaming Einstein, you haven't decided to blame Ross Jeffries which is one of the original teachers of it. Instead, there is the blanket ban which is more like blaming everything related to the term "Nuclear"...

As for "Whereas PUAs are all just PUAs" I completely and utterly disagree. It just shows how little you understand about the area. The people who learned and use the material from Seduction.Alt.Fast are completely different to the people that learned under Ross Jeffries. The aims are different, the morality is different, and the methods used are completely different.

The techniques I have learned to use are based on nlp, language, pacing, tone, and mirroring my partner. Its a very neutral process with one aim. To leave my partner better than she was before she met me. Whereas other PUA followers might be looking to have some fun, or have sex, or a dozen of other reasons.

As your personal story, trust me, I get it.

No, trust me, you don't. I didn't really expect you to. Otherwise, you would have a better understanding of what PUA offers to people.

From my perspective, you sound similar to the PUA I had the misfortune to get involved with, physically speaking. 6' 4", geeky, only by the time I met him he was nearly 30. I only found out after a month of dating that I was part of a handful of girls he was 'dating', and that he and his friend had a bet going to see how many different women they could **** by such-and-such date.

And the part in bold just shows how little you have understood of what I have said about PUA, what I learned to use, and my intentions in dating.

guitarzero

Deleted User wrote: »

Frankly I have to wonder how much you understand about how men feel about sex.

For women, I dont think they have a faintest about what sex means to a fella when they arent getting any. Think about it, AMSTERDAM. They are willing to get a flight to another country, lets be fair, just to have sex. To pay a woman they never met just for half an hour. I think that perhaps says it all.

gargleblaster

Tone? Really? Not substance? Sorry, but IMO that's weak.

And no, it's not based on gossip or internet complaints. It's real-life experience combined with internet-based research. A couple of people here have seemed to imply that it's unreasonable to expect to find anything but the worst cases online. Perhaps there's merit to that. That's not my point.

As for loss of control, this whole view that women have so much power and leverage is just laughable. All that is based on is sex with attractive women. Unattractive or shy women are seemingly written off as if they don't even exist by people who flog that particular dead horse. And I see why, really. It's incredibly shallow and transparent.

I'm not trying to "blame" anyone. Key figures or whatever. The point I've been trying to make the last few pages is that maybe we can stop pretending the problem is women who just don't get it, and focus on the fact that the problem is the majority of people using it (if you go by the forums) are giving it a bad name. If there's anyone I'm trying to "blame", it's the people there.

And NLP? Really? How can that possibly not be seen as manipulative?

One final point: As for men not having sex and flying to Amsterdam, not all men are like that. If I were a man who wasn't obsessed with using a woman for sex, I would be insulted by that claim. Many people are able to deal with using only masturbation as an outlet for sexual tension when they're unable to develop enough of a relationship with a member of the opposite sex to get it from their partner. This attitude that it's a biological need to have another person there to 'empty their bag' into (to use the kind of terminology that is so sadly popular) is nonsense. It positively reeks of entitlement.


on edit: one other point - klaz you failed to bold "physically speaking" when you singled out my one comment. I wasn't referring to you at all except for the way you looked. The rest was about him. You may be reading my posts, but apparently I am failing in my effort to communicate my thoughts and ideas, so I'm out.

guitarzero

gargleblaster wrote: »

One final point: As for men not having sex and flying to Amsterdam, not all men are like that. If I were a man who wasn't obsessed with using a woman for sex, I would be insulted by that claim. Many people are able to deal with using only masturbation as an outlet for sexual tension when they're unable to develop enough of a relationship with a member of the opposite sex to get it from their partner. This attitude that it's a biological need to have another person there to 'empty their bag' into (to use the kind of terminology that is so sadly popular) is nonsense. It positively reeks of entitlement.

I didnt say "obsessed with using a woman for sex". Obsessed makes it seem so wrong and why would you be insulted?!? Why are women so insulted when a bloke merely wants to have sex with you? Many men have to deal with only using masturbation. No one is entitled to sex of course, but whenever there is a need that is not being fulfilled, the bar is lowered to things like PUA and prostitution.
The reality is men are very sexual beings, if they are deprived they will stoop to different levels, not all of them of course.

gargleblaster

guitarzero that's a fair point, I apologize for my choice of words there. I had in mind the idea of a man making a special trip to another country solely for the purpose of purchasing sex. That probably isn't what you meant when you mentioned Amsterdam, so mea culpa.

But since I'm back here I'd just like to add that we're all sexual beings. Perhaps the most accurate generalization you could make is that we all like sex. This idea that women like it less than men simply because we don't think of it the same way is bunk. It's much harder for us to have orgasms (many women don't), so naturally we view it differently. For those who do have orgasms, and wish to have them with another person, it's really not that different. At all. Possibly it is more frustrating, as it is so much harder for some (most?) women to have them even if they are fortunate enough to find a partner who is willing to try to help them get there. People are all different and have different sex drives, but there is a reason vibrators and romance novels are so popular. Women like orgasms too. (All that said, I do realize there is a difference for adolescent males, however middle-aged women go through that spike in sexual urges as well.)


edit to add: Women aren't insulted because men want to have sex with them. Some women find it insulting that they're seen as only something to have sex with, and not a person. When there is a desire to get to know a woman as a person first, and develop a relationship as people, that's not insulting to those women who aren't interested in one night stands. Some women are into that, and for them having a man see them as nothing but an attractive body is all well and good, but you can't expect all women to have no problem with being sexualized that way. We are more than boobs and asses and vaginas, just as men are more than wallets. To go back to my gold-digger analogy - some men have no problem with the role of a sugar daddy, and for them being seen that way by a gold-digger is perfectly fine, however I don't think most men would be comfortable being thought of that way.

Reward Hunter

gargleblaster wrote: »

As for what Sharrow posted, none of that is about being able to communicate with women for the sake of building relationships. It is for the purpose of getting laid. It treats women not as people, not as individuals, but as holes. Just as a gold-digger treats men not as people, but as wallets.

The fundamentals of communication between a man and a woman, people in general for that matter, occurs on a subliminal sexual level.
This has been proven through the study of a certain breed of monkey.

Degree of sexuality and sexual aggression is probably the first thing that we assess of someone, on an instinctual level, upon initial contact.
Consciously, we assess secondary traits and perceptions, such as how they feel and react toward us as individuals, and their approach etc.

But as I said, all this is secondary to the aforementioned.

PUA - the concepts behind it at least - is quite revealing in that it effectively sifts through the day-to-day jargon and illustrates this in very lucid fashion.

Your description alludes to some notion that this victimizes women.
I'm sure they're terribly distressed at the prospect of a heightened sexual experience.

And as for it being irrelative to the initiation and strengthening of relationships - you do realize sex and a good sexual connection is effectively the basis for a relationship, the nature of which we're referring to?
Yet your claim is that it lends itself to the "objectification" of women?

...:rolleyes:

Reward Hunter

Deleted User wrote: »

We're not confused by that. Actually, I'm not confused about it at all. I know why women see the negatives. People fear two main things. Loss of control, and what they don't understand. Most women know nothing about PUA. Just some random gossip or internet complaints, and have decided that PUA is a threat to them. Secondly PUA offers men the freedom to gain some control over the dating process, which traditionally has been completely held by Irish girls.

Very good points.

Reward Hunter

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Also if a man only sees women as holes that's up to him and I don't see anything wrong with that so long as he doesn't intentionally deceive women, likewise there's nothing wrong imo with a woman seeing a man as merely a penis to have fun with. Saying that I think any man with that outlook is missing out.

As for "seeing someone only as holes", as it's so eloquently put - as best I can tell, the human ego will effectively reject anyone who approaches with this type of a mentality.

The females body will be unresponsive.
The male body will be unresponsive.
As best I can tell, we (humans) don't really work that way.

I guess nature had it like this, to stop us gratuitously humping each other like rabbits.

There MUST be a perception of human acknowledgement and desire for that individual.

I don't see it as being deceptive toward the person - I see it as deceiving nature.
Without this perception, it's not difficult to imagine that an approach with the offer or desire for sex would simply be construed as insulting and demeaning.

leggo

gargleblaster wrote: »

Tone? Really? Not substance? Sorry, but IMO that's weak.

And no, it's not based on gossip or internet complaints. It's real-life experience combined with internet-based research. A couple of people here have seemed to imply that it's unreasonable to expect to find anything but the worst cases online. Perhaps there's merit to that. That's not my point.

As for loss of control, this whole view that women have so much power and leverage is just laughable. All that is based on is sex with attractive women. Unattractive or shy women are seemingly written off as if they don't even exist by people who flog that particular dead horse. And I see why, really. It's incredibly shallow and transparent.

I'm not trying to "blame" anyone. Key figures or whatever. The point I've been trying to make the last few pages is that maybe we can stop pretending the problem is women who just don't get it, and focus on the fact that the problem is the majority of people using it (if you go by the forums) are giving it a bad name. If there's anyone I'm trying to "blame", it's the people there.

And NLP? Really? How can that possibly not be seen as manipulative?

One final point: As for men not having sex and flying to Amsterdam, not all men are like that. If I were a man who wasn't obsessed with using a woman for sex, I would be insulted by that claim. Many people are able to deal with using only masturbation as an outlet for sexual tension when they're unable to develop enough of a relationship with a member of the opposite sex to get it from their partner. This attitude that it's a biological need to have another person there to 'empty their bag' into (to use the kind of terminology that is so sadly popular) is nonsense. It positively reeks of entitlement.


on edit: one other point - klaz you failed to bold "physically speaking" when you singled out my one comment. I wasn't referring to you at all except for the way you looked. The rest was about him. You may be reading my posts, but apparently I am failing in my effort to communicate my thoughts and ideas, so I'm out.

Can you combine the two statements in bold and see how weak your own argument is?

By saying that you've had real-life experience and done internet research then concluded that the majority of men using it give it a bad name, implies that you've encountered the majority of men who've read it and tried it. Which is ridiculous!

What's possible is that you REALLY mean the majority YOU'VE encountered.

And I'm not surprised. Your (presumably negative given your stance) real life experience has led you to this stage...so you're going to view all PUA movements through those blinkers and the majority of stuff you SEE (i.e. choose to read and judge) fit in with your pre-existing notion of what PUA is.

"The majority of PUAs are manipulative" is as ridiculous a statement as "the majority of men are pigs" or "the majority of women are up their own arse".

I hate to say it, but do you think that you yourself could be the common denominator here in the people you seem to be constantly encountering? I mean, I've been there, done this and can see the statements you're making are complete rubbish. Is it AT ALL possible that your own poor decisions, coupled with lack of knowledge on how to change those in the future, are leading you to this ridiculous conclusion?

I don't mean to get personal here, I don't know you nearly enough to do so. I'm just trying to get you to see it from an alternative light. After all, if we aren't willing to question ourselves, how can we know if we're ACTUALLY right?

Wibbs

Reward Hunter wrote: »

The fundamentals of communication between a man and a woman, people in general for that matter, occurs on a subliminal sexual level.
This has been proven through the study of a certain breed of monkey.

Wut? A "certain breed of monkey"? Is this from the same scientician "studies" you reckon prove there are no such things as true lesbians? Anyway...

Human communication is by far and away the most sophisticated and nuanced of it's kind in the animal kingdom. Research on monkeys(apes specifically) may point to origins of certain behaviours but researchers are still trying to figure out which ones and by how much. Our closest relatives, the chimps and bononos are quite different to one another in how they interact and very different to us(the former are male dominance driven and aggressive, the latter female and unaggressive). Sexuality wise we're so different on any number of levels we're near aliens compared to the great apes. Good example; breasts. Women and female apes have them, but only women have them fully "inflated" all the time. The only time a female apes breasts are full is when she's breastfeeding and infertile. It signifies to the males she's not fertile and/or receptive, yet confusingly human males find breasts sexually attractive. They shouldn't. No male ape would as it should trigger the response of "naw no point". Another example; women hide their fertility, specifically ovulation. Female apes don't. That's just for starters, there is a whole heap of differences overt and hidden below the surface going on in human sexuality. Its not as simplistic as some "gurus" in the PUA movement would have you believe. Do not get me started on the notion of "alpha males". They pretty much all make this out as fact, without the barest clue of the nuances involved.

And as for it being irrelative to the initiation and strengthening of relationships - you do realize sex and a good sexual connection is effectively the basis for a relationship, the nature of which we're referring to?

This I would agree with 100% RH. Women(and men too for that matter, but a lot less) dress up sexual needs in romance and other magical thinking frameworks. IMHO Above and beyond the idea of being manipulated(understandable) this is where some of the objections of some women to the notion of PUA comes from. It exposes, or tries to explain the basic and base mechanisms behind what they may see as a "pure" and higher emotion and they don't like that romance being taken out of the equation.

I've noted this before, but you never or very rarely hear men come out with phrases like "love at first sight/weak at the knees/its fate/I just knew they were "The One(tm)"/it was meant to be" etc. You hear it quite a lot from women. Usually as a way to explain away sexual feelings for a guy triggered by the usual cues. It's just the same set of responses when a guy sees an attractive woman and wants to have sex with her. Of course it's to do with sex or more specifically reproduction(even if you chose not to). If it wasn't people of both genders would be as likely to hook up with friends of their own gender who are emotionally compatible*. Many if not most people have more stable relationships with same gender mates as much as they do with romantic partners over a lifetime.

The difference also comes with some gender specific reproductive needs. Both genders want to reproduce with the best partner they can find. Women have to be more careful in this as they end up carrying the baby, so have more of a list to tick off. The fear of that list being manipulated and faked so they feel something they otherwise wouldnt feel is much higher. Men want to reproduce with the best, but also have a bit more of a drive to just reproduce full stop. A man in general is not so concerned or taking that much of a risk with manipulation(rich men are more likely to). Indeed men will ignore female "manipulation". By which I mostly mean in tweaking of appearance, the main reproductive trigger for men. Small boobs? Push up bra. Short legs? High heels. Bit tubby? Wear clothes that avoid "problem areas", even wear corsets. Bad skin/small eyes/thin lips? Make up etc. One might argue that the average saturday night in a cityscape is a rolling bestilted, tottering and plucked catwalk of female reproductive manipulation. Certainly by comparison men have less tools at their disposal than the ladies. I think PUA tries to fill that gap. I'd add that PUA is as much to do with many men feeling lost as men as a gender. I just have some issues in how it attempts to do so.

Aside What is interesting for me is that men, the object of this will even fetishise these various mechanisms of manipulation. The woman in the basque, corset, push up bra, stockings and suspenders and 6 inch heels is lauded as much more sexy than the same woman standing there naked. Something I could never personally understand. For me that crap is just wrapping /aside

Even so if we look at people hooking up as a general thing, you'll note that a helluva lot of "it was meant to be" relationships that kick off as a drunken grope in a nightclub with a relative stranger. If it was based on "purer" principles that would happen a lot less. How many women end up with a male friend of many years? You would think that would be more logical, yet IME one of the worst ways to romantically attract a woman is by being her friend first. How many men and women have left a happy enough partnership they've been with for years for someone new and barely known to them? How many women have woken up one day and feel nothing sexual for their boyfriend? The "I love you, I'm not in love with you" thing. Translation; "I like you emotionally, but I don't want to reproduce with you anymore". Again it's based on sexual/reproductive needs as much as anything else.








*naturally I'm not including gay folks in this, just hitting the straight angle.

guitarzero

guitarzero wrote: »

For women, I dont think they have a faintest about what sex means to a fella when they arent getting any. Think about it, AMSTERDAM. They are willing to get a flight to another country, lets be fair, just to have sex. To pay a woman they never met just for half an hour. I think that perhaps says it all.

I went to Amsterdam quite a bit when I was in my 20's. I did pay for sex. But I didn't go to Amsterdam solely for the sex. Very few men will, because tbh the sex is pretty mechanical. The drugs, the nightlife, and frankly some of the best bakeries in Europe are rather strong attractions.

The problem is that women don't seek to actually find any less obvious reasons for why men go to Amsterdam. Like, if a woman goes to Amsterdam its shopping, the culture, etc, but for men, its automatically the sex. And yet, I know three different women who have been to Amsterdam as many times as I have, and have had paid for sex each time. Its just easier to throw down paying for sex as a reason. BTW, Amsterdam is also one of the best places in Europe to go clubbing and meet a girl for good free sex. Shocking, no?

gargleblaster wrote: »

Tone? Really? Not substance? Sorry, but IMO that's weak.

Ok, lets try this. You state that you see some positives to the PUA scene, but then post everything you can about the negatives. Is that better?

And no, it's not based on gossip or internet complaints. It's real-life experience combined with internet-based research. A couple of people here have seemed to imply that it's unreasonable to expect to find anything but the worst cases online. Perhaps there's merit to that. That's not my point.

Well, lets see. Have you been to any seminars? tried any of the material yourself? perhaps spent a dedicated period of time immersing yourself in the material with the aim of bettering your life? Have you sifted through the crappy immature material to find the material that suits your personality and lifestyle?

Nope. You have checked the most obvious sources. i.e. the free bulletin boards, websites, and possibly read "the game". You haven't gotten your hands on the paid material from the more reliable teachers of PUA. Have you?

You see, I bought the starter books from Ross Jeffries, used them for a year of continuous and dedicated effort, then went to 3 different seminars in London to see him, and continued to experiement with his material and then seeking other resources not directly related to RJ. In total, I spent roughly 4 years training myself before I became confident that I knew the material that was acceptable to my personality.... (And I'm still adding to it as I grow as a person)

Now, I'm not expecting you to have done the same. Its obvious you come from a completely different background, and have no need for such a development. But that lack of background is one of the main reasons why you don't dig past the immature and ignorant PUA material that floats like scum on the internet.

Lastly, your real life experience boils down to one guy who was a jerk (and supposedly studied PUA) and treated you badly. Therefore anyone involved in PUA, must also be a jerk. Excellent!

As for loss of control, this whole view that women have so much power and leverage is just laughable. All that is based on is sex with attractive women. Unattractive or shy women are seemingly written off as if they don't even exist by people who flog that particular dead horse. And I see why, really. It's incredibly shallow and transparent.

Sex? You're the one focused on sex. I'm talking about dating. About talking & flirting with women. Sex isn't hard. Go out any night and get drunk. But talking to a girl, forming a connection, closing, and even better... having her want to see you again. *Gosh* Sex?

As for the loss of control aspect... its worrying that you can't see the way Irish dating is.. Especially since this topic relates directly to men seeking the tools to make the process easier.

I'm not trying to "blame" anyone. Key figures or whatever. The point I've been trying to make the last few pages is that maybe we can stop pretending the problem is women who just don't get it, and focus on the fact that the problem is the majority of people using it (if you go by the forums) are giving it a bad name. If there's anyone I'm trying to "blame", it's the people there.

Strange, it seemed to me that you were allocating some measure of blame. After all, if the jerk you met had never learned PUA, you would never have been with him in the first place. Yes?

And NLP? Really? How can that possibly not be seen as manipulative?

You obviously have no idea of what NLP entails. Do some real research.

leggo

Wibbs wrote: »

Human communication is by far and away the most sophisticated and nuanced of it's kind in the animal kingdom. Research on monkeys(apes specifically) may point to origins of certain behaviours but researchers are still trying to figure out which ones and by how much. Our closest relatives, the chimps and bononos are quite different to one another in how they interact and very different to us(the former are male dominance driven and aggressive, the latter female and unaggressive). Sexuality wise we're so different on any number of levels we're near aliens compared to the great apes. Good example; breasts. Women and female apes have them, but only women have them fully "inflated" all the time. The only time a female apes breasts are full is when she's breastfeeding and infertile. It signifies to the males she's not fertile and/or receptive, yet confusingly human males find breasts sexually attractive. They shouldn't. No male ape would as it should trigger the response of "naw no point". Another example; women hide their fertility, specifically ovulation. Female apes don't. That's just for starters, there is a whole heap of differences overt and hidden below the surface going on in human sexuality. Its not as simplistic as some "gurus" in the PUA movement would have you believe. Do not get me started on the notion of "alpha males". They pretty much all make this out as fact, without the barest clue of the nuances involved.

This is another bugbear of mine with the community. I lost all interest in David Deangelo after watching a seminar of his where he tried to relate society's primal mating instincts back to caveman times. It was over-simplistic beyond ridicule. "If he couldn't find a partner, he would be excluded from the group, and would therefore die."

Never mind the fact that the fact that encouraging men to conform to a particular lifestyle would be a self-defeating prophecy in said man's search to become an 'alpha male'. By their own definition, an alpha male marches to the tune of his own beat. So why would he do this by adopting somebody else's lifestyle which may conflict with his own plans?

Alas, I view it as a science (albeit a controversial one). And, as stated already, the very nature of science dictates that it will ALWAYS be an incomplete study. I wish some would just...you know...actually embrace scientific research before making these ridiculous claims. It's the reason debates like this are formed and gives easy ammo to the critics, who I suspect only seek this ammo out of other motives.

Reward Hunter

Wibbs wrote: »

Wut? A "certain breed of monkey"? Is this from the same scientician "studies" you reckon prove there are no such things as true lesbians? Anyway...

Firstly, don't you condescend to me, woman.

Human communication is by far and away the most sophisticated and nuanced of it's kind in the animal kingdom. Research on monkeys(apes specifically) may point to origins of certain behaviours but researchers are still trying to figure out which ones and by how much. Our closest relatives, the chimps and bononos are quite different to one another in how they interact and very different to us(the former are male dominance driven and aggressive, the latter female and unaggressive). Sexuality wise we're so different on any number of levels we're near aliens compared to the great apes.

There is a whole heap of differences overt and hidden below the surface going on in human sexuality. Its not as simplistic as some "gurus" in the PUA movement would have you believe. Do not get me started on the notion of "alpha males". They pretty much all make this out as fact, without the barest clue of the nuances involved.

Secondly - it's very much obvious to anyone with an iota of intellect that our (humans) relationships are more complex that that of animals.

But notice how I used the word "fundamental" as I was referring to perception of sexuality and sexual aggression.
And yes, I personally do believe it is paramount as regards communication and behavior of one human toward another.

Would it not be logical that if relationships and their strength are based hugely on the degree of sexual attraction, that the perception of ones sexuality would determine the recipients degree of regard for them?

A man will also perceive another mans degree of sexuality and sexual aggression, and it has a massive bearing on how one will react toward another.
Men can and will use sexual coercion as a means of self assertion, on another man who they perceive to be less or lacking in aggression (sexual, not physical) in this regard, and it's instinctual in a sense.


You say our interaction is more complex and "nuanced"?

IMO - of course. We're humans, with self awareness and intellect, and this demands that we behave with civility and humanity.

Men don't chase around the female until she eventually gives up and let's us hop on from the rear.
Of course it's more complex.

But again, notice how I used the word fundamental.


PS - back to the "alpha" conundrum.
I've come to my own accord as regards it's meaning.

Typically, "alpha" is used toward a male who uses various means to assert himself over others, the guy who appears intimidating and uses this intimidation as a means to self assertion.
My opinion, is that those with a disposition of this nature are simply insecure and unfulfilled in a sense, and use this behavior as a means to compensate.

What I believe alpha to be, is quite simply, a man who can offer quite thorough fulfillment in the sexual sense, for a woman.

What I have noticed is, some women do have a very strong craving for sex of a specific nature, and it's a fact that some men do not "appreciate" this, shall we say.

One guy actually told me he was "disgusted", when his quiet petite girlfriend, by his own inducement, exposed her desires in this sense.

But yeah, that's just my opinion.

Wibbs

Reward Hunter wrote: »

Firstly, don't you condescend to me, woman.

Woman? Ah bless. :pac: Seeing a bit of your attitude peaking out behind the curtain methinks? But wrong gender for a start. Oh though I suppose I am a lifelong and true lesbian. Though apparently they don't exist so yea must go back to being my old straight male self then. If it helps, your male powah dominance display made me wet, but I'm getting to that age so I likely just peed myself. Possibly with mirth or intimidation? Hard call.

Secondly - it's very much obvious to anyone with an iota of intellect that our (humans) relationships are more complex that that of animals.

But notice how I used the word "fundamental" as I was referring to perception of sexuality and sexual aggression.

That's not what I said. Maybe if you understood my posts better? Though probably my fault and apologies if I wasn't being clear.

I questioned your reasoning and evidence for this "fundamental" correlation between monkeys(never mind great apes) and our behaviour. I was questioning your quoting(without references or links) to "proof" of this "study" and comparing it to your even more(and I'm being kind here) "out there" notion about the sexual life of gay women.

A man will also perceive another mans degree of sexuality and sexual aggression, and it has a massive bearing on how one will react toward another. Men can and will use sexual coercion as a means of self assertion, on another man who they perceive to be less or lacking in aggression (sexual, not physical) in this regard, and it's instinctual in a sense.

Maybe in the schoolyard or among (young)insecure men dealing with other insecure men with a facade of self control on one side, but quite honestly I've never come across that in my life. Not to that degree anyway.

You say our interaction is more complex and "nuanced"?

It's more than nuanced, its actually very different from other animals including our closest relatives the great apes.

Men don't chase around the female until she eventually gives up and let's us hop on from the rear.
Of course it's more complex.

It's more complex than that even with the great apes, so like I said with humans it's a magnitude more complex again.

Typically, "alpha" is used toward a male who uses various means to assert himself over others, the guy who appears intimidating and uses this intimidation as a means to self assertion.
My opinion, is that those with a disposition of this nature are simply insecure and unfulfilled in a sense, and use this behavior as a means to compensate.

I would agree 100% with you there.

What I believe alpha to be, is quite simply, a man who can offer quite thorough fulfillment in the sexual sense, for a woman.

Contrary to what a lot of the PUA material states, it has been my experience that a woman will leave a man hung like a donkey and a demon in bed for a man hung like a gnat who thinks clitoris is a Greek island but who brings more to the table. They may have a fling with sexgodman, or even an affair, but they won't tend to stay. IMO the PUA, or at least some of the more "primitive" early versions do the same old disservice to observation, by filtering a new worldview through their own worldview first. Common with many single minded concepts, especially in the early days. It has also been my observation(though on a cursory reading) that these earlier PUA notions are as much about trying to say on one hand women think differently, yet on the other hand think like men. Or they want to believe that. It's comforting maybe.

What I have noticed is, some women do have a very strong craving for sex of a specific nature, and it's a fact that some men do not "appreciate" this, shall we say.

One guy actually told me he was "disgusted", when his quiet petite girlfriend, by his own inducement, exposed her desires in this sense.

I would somewhat agree. I would agree that sexually immature men are ignorant of women's sexuality and can fall into the madonna/whore dichotomy alright. I'd even go so far as to describe an average man's idea trajectory over time about women's sexuality as thus; "I'll try to convince her to let me do this.... I can't believe she's letting me do that.... I can't believe she wants to do that... No way am I doing that. :eek: ". But "specific nature". What are we talking about here? Gimp masks and whips and french ticklers or what?

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

People fear two main things. Loss of control, and what they don't understand. Most women know nothing about PUA. Just some random gossip or internet complaints, and have decided that PUA is a threat to them. Secondly PUA offers men the freedom to gain some control over the dating process, which traditionally has been completely held by Irish girls.

Funny enough I think you can turn this around and look at it another way. Many men feel they aren't in control or just don't understand the dating process. I think control is probably the wrong term, more socially awkward and they just don't get "the moves" that comes naturally to other guys.

Traditionally women do hold the control in that obviously they tend to determine if a guy is acceptable to talk to initially, to kiss and eventually have sex or/+ a relationship. Some men seem to have little problem getting past the defence mechanisms and it often seems to be the "bastard" is the key to it.

PUA suffers because it comes across as appealing to the "bastard" side of getting the woman, some of the more extreme examples posted on this thread for example.

What I got from some of the PUA stuff, DeAngelo would have been decent a few years ago, was that it was okay to be playful and tease women, to playfully touch her hand in a flirting way to show a signal of intent, to joke about sex as men take it far too seriously, playfully challenge her, stuff like that. When you are raised to respect women and do everything she wants to keep her happy, to be a "gentleman", sometimes this stuff doesn't come naturally.

As you start doing the little things that are right you start seeing signals that you didn't see before and acting on them, the signal for a kiss for example. In many ways you are just doing the romantic things than Wibbs mentioned women call "sweeping them of their feet".

What it gives you is confidence and a few tricks. I'd have had no problem talking to a girl, just the actual walking up and introducing was the problem after 7 years in a serious relationship. My problem was the confidence to make a move, talking was never a problem but learning to read the signals was.

I see PUA as another self help book, not too far of The Secret. Don't take it too seriously as it ends up over analysed nonsense , take the good parts and ignore the parts you don't feel comfortable with. Some can't differentiate though.

Reward Hunter

Wibbs wrote: »

Woman? Ah bless. :pac: Seeing a bit of your attitude peaking out behind the curtain methinks? But wrong gender for a start. Oh though I suppose I am a lifelong and true lesbian. Though apparently they don't exist so yea must go back to being my old straight male self then. If it helps, your male powah dominance display made me wet, but I'm getting to that age so I likely just peed myself. Possibly with mirth or intimidation? Hard call.

I was being facetious, with that reference - you understand?

I would somewhat agree. I would agree that sexually immature men are ignorant of women's sexuality and can fall into the madonna/whore dichotomy alright. I'd even go so far as to describe an average man's idea trajectory over time about women's sexuality as thus; "I'll try to convince her to let me do this.... I can't believe she's letting me do that.... I can't believe she wants to do that... No way am I doing that. :eek: ". But "specific nature". What are we talking about here? Gimp masks and whips and french ticklers or what?

No...

Simply that even with a girl or woman that seems very subdued, quiet, timid even - there is a very strong desire for sex of a more intense nature.
It obviously sits in stark contrast to ones perception of their personality, and when it manifests itself, it compromises entirely that perception of the quiet vulnerable little girl.

This throws some guys off, for what ever reason.

The renowned Tommy Tiernan once joked that, and I quote, "inside even the most gentle delicate looking flower of a woman, there's a c0ck loving wh0re, just dying to get out".

He said it in jest, but it's completely true.

**

However, in reference to your comment that girls tend more so to have only a "fling" with these "wildsexmen" - where I'm from at least, this is not so much the case.

In fact, often times there seems to be something akin to resentment for men who tend to project or accentuate that persona - I believe it comes back to whole empowerment argument.

I also believe, sex is mainly in the head.
It's a physical act, but it's intensity and enjoyability are determined largely through the "psycho-sexual" connection, I reference again, one's sexual aggression - perception, and approach.

Them factors combined are what makes the act more fulfilling, IMO.

I also believe every man has the potential to offer entirely gratifying sex to a woman - and I know that in a relationship, no matter how irritable or highly strung or prone to argumentation the woman, when the sex is good, she'll pretty much let everything else slide.

Thus, I refer back to my assertion that a good sexual connection is the basis for a male-female relationship, and if it's not good, the relationship is far more likely to encounter difficulties (a survey in the US showed that over 30% of men are fathering children that are not their own - understand?).
Of course it's not the only factor, but I believe it to be the most crucial one.

Wibbs

Reward Hunter wrote: »

I was being facetious, with that reference - you understand?

FYI "Firstly, don't you condescend to me, woman." while inaccurate, is pretty clear in it's intent. Always a bad plan to backtrack when one is called on something. Best to stand by ones guns and ride it out. Quite unseemly otherwise. If you were being facetious, may I respectfully suggest more practice in the art to get that intent across?

No...

Simply that even with a girl or woman that seems very subdued, quiet, timid even - there is a very strong desire for sex of a more intense nature.
It obviously sits in stark contrast to ones perception of their personality, and when it manifests itself, it compromises entirely that perception of the quiet vulnerable little girl.

Is this some internal fantasy running mayhap? Hey maybe I'm getting this wrong. Though it's such a fantasy meme of some men, so you can see my confusion?

However, in reference to your comment that girls tend more so to have only a "fling" with these "wildsexmen" - where I'm from at least, this is not so much the case.

In fact, often times there seems to be something akin to resentment for men who tend to project or accentuate that persona - I believe it comes back to whole empowerment argument.

I also believe, sex is mainly in the head.
It's a physical act, but it's intensity and enjoyability are determined largely through the "psycho-sexual" connection, I reference again, one's sexual aggression - perception, and approach.

Them factors combined are what makes the act more fulfilling, IMO.

I also believe every man has the potential to offer entirely gratifying sex to a woman - and I know that in a relationship, no matter how irritable or highly strung or prone to argumentation the woman, when the sex is good, she'll pretty much let everything else slide.

Man you really seem to have fallen for and on the lower slopes of the PUA mountain.

Thus, I refer back to my assertion that a good sexual connection is the basis for a male-female relationship, and if it's not good, the relationship is far more likely to encounter difficulties (a survey in the US showed that over 30% of men are fathering children that are not their own - understand?).
Of course it's not the only factor, but I believe it to be the most crucial one.

Try researching beyond the PUA world and your own internal worldview on the various stats. It's not even close to a third. No really. It's not. Look you're a guy who earlier in the thread stated that there are no true lesbians. Like I said you pretty much lost me at that, since that point it's been more a scant and lazy inquiry on my part to see how you think about other concepts. So far it's been interesting and plays more into the idea that PUA can end up in an uninformed place with some.

Id est:

K-9 wrote:

I see PUA as another self help book, not too far of The Secret. Don't take it too seriously as it ends up over analysed nonsense , take the good parts and ignore the parts you don't feel comfortable with. Some can't differentiate though.

Nail on the head there K and my worry concerns your last sentence.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Id est: Nail on the head there K and my worry concerns your last sentence.

Usually exemplified by somebody just not getting what an Alpha Male is, stupid as that term is.

Alpha males usually see no need in calling a guy out, they just know when it has happened. Male intuition if you will.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Funny enough I think you can turn this around and look at it another way. Many men feel they aren't in control or just don't understand the dating process. I think control is probably the wrong term, more socially awkward and they just don't get "the moves" that comes naturally to other guys.

Ahh well, I was using the term control in reference to the women, not from the male perspective. And what is the dating process? I actually don't really understand it even after all these years. We talk about a simple process to describe dating, but every encounter I have had with a woman has been different.

Traditionally women do hold the control in that obviously they tend to determine if a guy is acceptable to talk to initially, to kiss and eventually have sex or/+ a relationship. Some men seem to have little problem getting past the defence mechanisms and it often seems to be the "bastard" is the key to it.

Well, when I started dating originally, the was the very common defence mechanism (although I think defence mechanism is a rather misleading term) of being as ignorant as possible in response to the most innocent of approaches. Perhaps that has changed somewhat in Ireland. I don't know since I don't spend much time there anymore.

But yes, it was the "bastards", or guys that simply ignored the nasty remarks that managed to close time and time again. Wonderful for any guy that wants to respect women.

PUA suffers because it comes across as appealing to the "bastard" side of getting the woman, some of the more extreme examples posted on this thread for example.

The really funny thing though is that the vast majority of guys I have met through PUA are nice guys. They want to respect both themselves and the women they meet. They want to be happy. Oh, there are bastards involved in the scene, but I haven't met that many. Although saying that, I did go to a seminar in New York a few years back, and it was filled to the rafters with dib****s. [On the mailing lists, forums, emails etc you see a lot more evidence of the bastards, but when they have to be physically present, many of them just fold up under scrutiny.]

And the extreme examples will always get more airtime. My favorite chat up line is "Hello" followed by a honest remark about my interest in her. Hardly, the type of behavior that sends women running to the barn to get pitchforks.

What I got from some of the PUA stuff, DeAngelo would have been decent a few years ago, was that it was okay to be playful and tease women, to playfully touch her hand in a flirting way to show a signal of intent, to joke about sex as men take it far too seriously, playfully challenge her, stuff like that. When you are raised to respect women and do everything she wants to keep her happy, to be a "gentleman", sometimes this stuff doesn't come naturally.

I found DeAngelo great until I found his teacher, RJ. DeAngelo is great at marketing, and breaking the complicated down into small pieces for the lazy to ingest. He keeps it all so simple, which is fine for someone who only wants to dabble in PUA without making any real changes to their lives.. but ultimately his products are too shallow to offer any real benefits.

As you start doing the little things that are right you start seeing signals that you didn't see before and acting on them, the signal for a kiss for example. In many ways you are just doing the romantic things than Wibbs mentioned women call "sweeping them of their feet".

What it gives you is confidence and a few tricks. I'd have had no problem talking to a girl, just the actual walking up and introducing was the problem after 7 years in a serious relationship. My problem was the confidence to make a move, talking was never a problem but learning to read the signals was.

We all needed different things from PUA. I needed an almost complete make-over.

I see PUA as another self help book, not too far of The Secret. Don't take it too seriously as it ends up over analysed nonsense , take the good parts and ignore the parts you don't feel comfortable with. Some can't differentiate though.

I see PUA as being a gateway. It introduces you to a realm of possibilities and the only limiting factor is you/me. Its no longer about the girls. And it gives you the tools to make changing your own limiting beliefs easier. If someone seriously seeks to learn and use the PUA material, it will change your lifestyle, but ultimately it is your personality/moral center that will determine the type of PUA you learn to use.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, when I started dating originally, the was the very common defence mechanism (although I think defence mechanism is a rather misleading term) of being as ignorant as possible in response to the most innocent of approaches.

There's been talk in the thread of a "slut defence" in women. I'd say it's more of a "bastard defence" going on K. For all sorts of reasons.

But yes, it was the "bastards", or guys that simply ignored the nasty remarks that managed to close time and time again. Wonderful for any guy that wants to respect women.

One reason why the bastard defence is really crap. Though it can simply be that the "bastard" is not actually a bastard, just a socially more mature male, or just simply better looking/more attractive. Or most of all, they actually approach women in the first place. And this is where IMH PUA seems to work a lot of the time. Not the material, just the fact a man who previously wouldnt say hello, does and says hello to more women. A numbers game if you will. You can't catch fish with your bait in the boat.

There can be an element of entitlement with some younger men too. And a lack of self awareness about what they're actually offering to a woman. The extreme cliche would be the excessively silent, socially awkward internally driven "shy*" guy sitting in the shadows and not being part of the community, becoming more and more bitter over "bastards" getting women, "bastards" he feels superior to in the first place. Over women he as a package wouldn't actually and objectively stand a chance with unless he just publicly floated his multinational.

I'd have various theories on why younger women go for obvious bastards. A lot certainly seem to go through a phase of it. The majority move beyond that stage though. It does seem to be a rite of passage in a way. More than young guys going out with utter wagons in my experience anyway. I've had women mates be drawn to such men and me and their male and female friends will tell them up front "look this guy is a dick and here's why" and like moths to a flame... Indeed pointing this out often makes them more attracted to them.

I see PUA as being a gateway. It introduces you to a realm of possibilities and the only limiting factor is you/me. Its no longer about the girls. And it gives you the tools to make changing your own limiting beliefs easier. If someone seriously seeks to learn and use the PUA material, it will change your lifestyle, but ultimately it is your personality/moral center that will determine the type of PUA you learn to use.

I get that alright. I'd see the growth of PUA as evidence of a deeper malaise and insecurity in young men, a need for guidance from other older/more experienced men with a roadmap they can follow in a culture that has lost a lot of that. A culture that's confusing for many young men. A confusion that comes into sharp focus in the whole dating scene. So as you describe the "how to get laid" bit becomes more of a grow your own inner man. It also gives men, often isolated men a community they feel they belong to, a community just for men.




*when I talk of shy, I'm not talking of the chap who has a genuine social interaction problem, I'm talking of the more selfish shyness. For me this shyness is self centred. It's all about how they feel, how uncomfortable they are, not how others or the group may feel. IMHO it's actually quite egotistical.