Julien Blanc gets destroyed in CNN interview

Foxtrol

Laura Palmer wrote: »

I know what you're saying but I'm asking what you mean when you say women "daily" do "similar" stuff to PUA.

I think people are only referring to the more extreme PUA, which has an undertone of viewing women negatively, not tips to help improve a guy's confidence (which is obviously grand).

They daily alter their appearance to 'manipulate' (to use a word so frequently directed towards PUA techniques) both men and women. Just because one is visual and the other is verbal it doesn't make them different.

They really aren't. Even posters who claim they don't judge guys who use PUA have said they'd automatically wouldn't date a guy if they found out he had tried it out. I get the clear sense from reading posts that anti-PUA posters have attached a stigma to it and think less of guys who are involved.

If people are only referring to the extreme parts of PUA then they should say it in their posts, listing what they have issue with. If I started making negative sweeping statements implying against the women who get sucked into spend money in the beauty industry, likening it to an illegal act, when I was actually only talking about women getting ass implants, then I'd be called out on it very quick. No one seems to mind when posters are making these sweeping statements about PUA techniques or those involved.

Foxtrol

volchitsa wrote: »

Where I have a problem with the whole PUA thing is when it's not about men altering themselves, it's the negging stuff and so on - that is about manipulating other people's feelings, and is completely different to dressing up, make up and so on, which is about making yourself look nice. That's what all animals do in mating rituals. It would be OTT to compare that to making someone else feel bad about themselves.

Altering your own personality is, IMO, pretty much impossible. All they do is alter how they present themselves, and anything more fundamental than that is just deception and is harder to carry off than some people seem to think.

Ok, give me a few more techniques other than negging that are mainstream PUA techniques that manipulate others feelings. Are you also aware that negging is a tiny element of PUA? Again using my ass implant analogy, would it be ok for me to make broad sweeping negative statements about the beauty industry and women who spend money in it due to an extreme example of it that involves a small part of the overall industry?

Confidence to me is a personality trait and PUA definitely improves that.

Laura Palmer

volchitsa wrote: »

Where I have a problem with the whole PUA thing is when it's not about men altering themselves, it's the negging stuff and so on - that is about manipulating other people's feelings, and is completely different to dressing up, make up and so on, which is about making yourself look nice. That's what all animals do in mating rituals. It would be OTT to compare that to making someone else feel bad about themselves.

Exactly. It's tiresome to see the strawclutching of saying women who wear make-up are being devious, deceitful and conniving (not saying all PUA is like that) when all they're doing is making themselves look nice, which is what guys like. Even someone resorted to saying that women who wear wonderbras are "worse than" PUA. ****ing hell.
And now we've gotten to the point where it's being said women who wear make-up daily are pretty much doing the equivalent as negging daily - people usually go to work Monday to Friday, rather than dating and heading to bars, so I don't know what this "daily" thing is about btw.
It's all a bit through the looking-glass at this stage.

Right so then guys, go for girls who don't make any effort... but ye won't (and nothing wrong with that).

If a woman is REALLY overdoing the fake stuff, it's one thing (bit of a leap to refer to ass implants in the same breath as a bit of make-up) but if a woman wears a small bit of make-up and dresses in such a way that flatters her figure and styles her hair to make it look its best and wears a well-fitting bra to keep her boobs up rather than drooping, you'd want to be some master at twisting logic to deem that manipulation.

volchitsa

Foxtrol wrote: »

They daily alter their appearance to 'manipulate' (to use a word so frequently directed towards PUA techniques) both men and women. Just because one is visual and the other is verbal it doesn't make them different.

They really aren't. Even posters who claim they don't judge guys who use PUA have said they'd automatically wouldn't date a guy if they found out he had tried it out. I get the clear sense from reading posts that anti-PUA posters have attached a stigma to it and think less of guys who are involved.

If people are only referring to the extreme parts of PUA then they should say it in their posts, listing what they have issue with. If I started making negative sweeping statements implying against the women who get sucked into spend money in the beauty industry, likening it to an illegal act, when I was actually only talking about women getting ass implants, then I'd be called out on it very quick. No one seems to mind when posters are making these sweeping statements about PUA techniques or those involved.

1) They really are, you know. Different, that is. One is basically grooming, the other is trying to deceive as to what sort of person you are. Or, as I said, worse, trying to undermine the other person so as to bring them "down" to your level.

2) Except in this case your analogy would have to include a video where the person you were quoting had actually said some of the things you were getting stick about, and you then dismissing the comments as not being what you meant. JB did say and do some of that stuff, so anyone defending him can't just say, Oh well it should be obviously I didn't mean that part of it. Why should it be obvious? Just because he had to apologise for it after? I'm not sure that helps a lot - he is supposed to have the hang of these things isn't he? That's how he makes his money - if he can "accidentally" come out with something so horrible that he didn't mean at all, how does that inspire confidence in what he's teaching young men? Either it's what he really thinks, or he's an uncontrolled idiot.

Either way, not someone to set up as a role model, IMO.

One eyed Jack

Foxtrol wrote: »

I said it earlier, it would be really great if female posters who are anti-PUA would look in the mirror and see how they daily manipulate men in similar ways before they start throwing out judgments.

You've consistently tried to equate women wearing make-up with guys who use PUA tactics in an attempt to pick up women (the clue is in the description). You're making a false equivalence there as the vast majority of women who choose to wear make-up do so to appear more attractive to themselves, whereas the vast majority of men who use PUA tactics do so to appear more attractive to women.

These men aren't trying to improve themselves for themselves, they're doing it with the specific intention of making themselves more attractive to the object of their desire.

Your claim that men can't tell when a woman is wearing make up is simply disingenuous, as is your claim that women wear make-up in order to deceive men. The comparison is invalid on so many levels, not the least of which being that you can tell when a woman is wearing makeup. The whole point of PUA ideology is that it isn't meant to be so obvious.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's my hang up that "bargaining" is really just another word for "prostitution" and that, in fact, all approaches to the opposite sex for affection/sex are "prostitution"... sure. Terrible hang up, eh?

Still twisting words and trying to say I said something I haven't said at all then?

Er, you are aware I'm not actually approaching you for sex here? Discussions at boards.ie generally are considered to be chat up lines now? You really think those two things are equivalent? Wow. Just, wow.

Twisty twisty...

volchitsa

Foxtrol wrote: »

Ok, give me a few more techniques other than negging that are mainstream PUA techniques that manipulate others feelings. Are you also aware that negging is a tiny element of PUA? Again using my ass implant analogy, would it be ok for me to make broad sweeping negative statements about the beauty industry and women who spend money in it due to an extreme example of it that involves a small part of the overall industry?

Confidence to me is a personality trait and PUA definitely improves that.

So now you're telling me to find other objections? Why should I? I object to negging, and I don't care how small a part of PUA it is, I still object to it. As for "the rest" I have no idea. But sticking a woman's face on his crotch makes me think I probably don't want to find out.

Now, if you think that's such a small part that it can be ignored, surely it's up to you to convince me that all the rest of the PUA stuff is so great, by telling me what it is? I'm not the one trying to defend it after all.

Otherwise, I'll continue to assume it's pretty much more of the same. What I have seen so far doesn't impress me. But maybe you have examples that will.

Laura Palmer

No I will agree women can wear make-up to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. I hate the "Women wear make-up for other women" stuff - it feeds into that notion some like to put out there that women are always in competition with each other. I wear a bit of make-up so I don't look that different with it on, but it does make me look my best - guys KNOW women wear make-up on a night out ffs.
I wouldn't be into the OTT make-up though.

Foxtrol

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Exactly. It's tiresome to see the strawclutching of saying women who wear make-up are being devious, deceitful and conniving (not saying all PUA is like that) when all they're doing is making themselves look nice, which is what guys like. Even someone resorted to saying that women who wear wonderbras are "worse than" PUA. ****ing hell.
And now we've gotten to the point where it's being said women who wear make-up daily are pretty much doing the equivalent as negging daily - people usually go to work Monday to Friday, rather than dating and heading to bars, so I don't know what this "daily" thing is about btw.
It's all a bit through the looking-glass at this stage.

What's you obsession about negging? It's a tiny component of PUA and you're comparing one of the most extreme aspects of PUA with one of the lowest ends of the beauty industry.

Right so then guys, go for girls who don't make any effort... but ye won't (and nothing wrong with that).

Right girls, don't go for guys using PUA. Problem solved, thread closed.

If a woman is REALLY overdoing the fake stuff, it's one thing (bit of a leap to refer to ass implants in the same breath as a bit of make-up) but if a woman wears a small bit of make-up and dresses in such a way that flatters her figure and styles her hair to make it look its best and wears a well-fitting bra to keep her boobs up rather than drooping, you'd want to be some master at twisting logic to deem that manipulation.

It's pretty funny and hypercritical that you point this out when you've consistently been doing this by talking about PUA in broad sweeping terms rather than the one or two aspects you dont like. I used ass implants to normal makeup to show how stupid it is to put all PUA techniques under the same umbrella of disdain. Most posters here are tarnishing a guy who is learned some body language stuff from a PUA site with a guy who pushes girls faces into his crotch.

Laura Palmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

What's you obsession about negging? It's a tiny component of PUA and you're comparing one of the most extreme aspects of PUA with one of the lowest ends of the beauty industry.



Right girls, don't go for guys using PUA. Problem solved, thread closed.



It's pretty funny and hypercritical that you point this out when you've consistently been doing this by talking about PUA in broad sweeping terms rather than the one or two aspects you dont like

But I haven't. I've said a couple of times that tips to improve a guy's confidence are a good thing.
I don't deem grooming the same as the more manipulative sides of PUA though; I think it's pretty crazy to do so.
If make-up is so devious, just go for women not wearing any - and who's dressed unflatteringly, and so on.

I mention negging because it is a tactic that really revolts me. It's "Chip away at confidence, exploit vulnerabilities" - and it's grim that this is being taught frankly.

volchitsa

Foxtrol wrote: »

What's you obsession about negging? It's a tiny component of PUA and you're comparing one of the most extreme aspects of PUA with one of the lowest ends of the beauty industry.

I used ass implants to normal makeup to show how stupid it is to put all PUA techniques under the same umbrella of disdain. Most posters here are tarnishing a guy who is learned some body language stuff from a PUA site with a guy who pushes girls faces into his crotch.

But that is the point - you can't compare plastic surgery to makeup, you can't go about getting it in the same way, the same place, etc, it's a completely different thing. PUA is about negging. You keep saying that's only part of it, but it is part of it. Plastic surgery is not part of a woman's make up regimen. It just isn't, and it's silly to compare the two.

the evasion_kid

Women have been manipulating men since Adam was a boy,crying being one of the main forms of it :pac:

Foxtrol

volchitsa wrote: »

1) They really are, you know. Different, that is. One is basically grooming, the other is trying to deceive as to what sort of person you are. Or, as I said, worse, trying to undermine the other person so as to bring them "down" to your level.

So altering you appearance to the point that you nearly unregoniseable without the makeup, fake eyelashes, fake tan, heels, dress that looks slimming (and that's not going into cosmetic surgery) isn't deceiving about who they are.

Give me a list of PUA that are there to undermine the other person.

2) Except in this case your analogy would have to include a video where the person you were quoting had actually said some of the things you were getting stick about, and you then dismissing the comments as not being what you meant. JB did say and do some of that stuff, so anyone defending him can't just say, Oh well it should be obviously I didn't mean that part of it. Why should it be obvious? Just because he had to apologise for it after? I'm not sure that helps a lot - he is supposed to have the hang of these things isn't he? That's how he makes his money - if he can "accidentally" come out with something so horrible that he didn't mean at all, how does that inspire confidence in what he's teaching young men? Either it's what he really thinks, or he's an uncontrolled idiot.

Either way, not someone to set up as a role model, IMO.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying ass implants don't exist? Here's a video for you promoting them:

So by your logic it's ok for me to say negative comments about all women who spend money in the beauty industry?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

But that is the point - you can't compare plastic surgery to makeup, you can't go about getting it in the same way, the same place, etc, it's a completely different thing. PUA is about negging. You keep saying that's only part of it, but it is part of it. Plastic surgery is not part of a woman's make up regimen. It just isn't, and it's silly to compare the two.

You refuse to accept there is anything to PUA except negging.
At the same time you refuse to accept there is anything to improving your appearance except make up.

Foxtrol

volchitsa wrote: »

So now you're telling me to find other objections? Why should I? I object to negging, and I don't care how small a part of PUA it is, I still object to it. As for "the rest" I have no idea. But sticking a woman's face on his crotch makes me think I probably don't want to find out.

Now, if you think that's such a small part that it can be ignored, surely it's up to you to convince me that all the rest of the PUA stuff is so great, by telling me what it is? I'm not the one trying to defend it after all.

Otherwise, I'll continue to assume it's pretty much more of the same. What I have seen so far doesn't impress me. But maybe you have examples that will.

This is ridiculous. You tar a whole group just because on one or two things upset you. I really wouldn't want to see your opinions on certain ethnic communities if that's the logic you're using.

Laura Palmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

So altering you appearance to the point that you nearly unregoniseable without the makeup, fake eyelashes, fake tan, heels, dress that looks slimming (and that's not going into cosmetic surgery) isn't deceiving about who they are.

But not all women go to that much trouble with make-up. I just wear a small bit. Why did you say women who criticise PUA wear manipulative make-up to fool men daily?

Give me a list of PUA that are there to undermine the other person.

I know you're saying I'm obsessed with negging (bit dismissive) but it does undermine - that's the whole purpose of it. I find it really ugly a tactic so it might seem obsessive to you but I just find it so disturbing that this approach is deemed a positive thing, that's why I go on about it.

Are you saying ass implants don't exist?

Lord god how did you come to that conclusion. Read her post again.

Laura Palmer

Wow, it's manipulative to wear a dress that looks slimming? And women should wear something that doesn't flatter in order not to be manipulative?
It keeps getting better!

I understand the point you're just trying to make Foxtrol is that not all PUA comes from a negative attitude towards women - and I agree with you. But good god, some of the grooming analogies are really really bottom-of-barrel-scraping.

I mean, I wouldn't wear the following in a fit: fake tan, fake nails, etc, but it is plain as day when a woman is wearing them - it really is!

Foxtrol

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You've consistently tried to equate women wearing make-up with guys who use PUA tactics in an attempt to pick up women (the clue is in the description). You're making a false equivalence there as the vast majority of women who choose to wear make-up do so to appear more attractive to themselves, whereas the vast majority of men who use PUA tactics do so to appear more attractive to women.

How are they doing it for themselves? What do they personally gain from it?

These men aren't trying to improve themselves for themselves, they're doing it with the specific intention of making themselves more attractive to the object of their desire.

Your claim that men can't tell when a woman is wearing make up is simply disingenuous, as is your claim that women wear make-up in order to deceive men. The comparison is invalid on so many levels, not the least of which being that you can tell when a woman is wearing makeup. The whole point of PUA ideology is that it isn't meant to be so obvious.

You're making women out to be pathetic creatures who cant see through guys bull****. A woman will either like the guy's PUA technique or send him packing. I agree some of it is subtle but so is some makeup/implants etc. Once again you're comparing the most extreme PUA techniques with the mildest part of the beauty industry.

Foxtrol

Laura Palmer wrote: »

But I haven't. I've said a couple of times that tips to improve a guy's confidence are a good thing.
I don't deem grooming the same as the more manipulative sides of PUA though; I think it's pretty crazy to do so.
If make-up is so devious, just go for women not wearing any - and who's dressed unflatteringly, and so on.

I mention negging because it is a tactic that really revolts me. It's "Chip away at confidence, exploit vulnerabilities" - and it's grim that this is being taught frankly.

The don't equate makeup to the most extreme parts of PUA. It's at the subtler end of the beauty industry, the same as the guys confidence is for PUA.

Posters are dumping on the whole of PUA rather than specific things they have an issue with.

Foxtrol

Laura Palmer wrote: »

But not all women go to that much trouble with make-up. I just wear a small bit. Why did you say women who criticise PUA wear manipulative make-up to fool men daily?

Not all guys involved in PUA techniques go around negging girls and shoving their heads into their crotches.

Because you've low level altered your appearance in the office, while the same time a guy in your office could be using PUA body language technique yet only one person is doing something wrong in some poster's eyes.

BTW I think neither are.

I know you're saying I'm obsessed with negging (bit dismissive) but it does undermine - that's the whole purpose of it. I find it really ugly a tactic so it might seem obsessive to you but I just find it so disturbing that this approach is deemed a positive thing, that's why I go on about it.

Then call out negging as being your problem, not broad statements about PUA techniques.

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Wow, it's manipulative to wear a dress that looks slimming? And women should wear something that doesn't flatter in order not to be manipulative?
It keeps getting better!

I understand the point you're just trying to make Foxtrol is that not all PUA comes from a negative attitude towards women - and I agree with you. But good god, some of the grooming analogies are really really bottom-of-barrel-scraping.

I mean, I wouldn't wear the following in a fit: fake tan, fake nails, etc, but it is plain as day when a woman is wearing them - it really is!

I clearly said why I used the word manipulative as it pops up every few pages in the thread when talking about PUA.

I'm saying none of those things, I'm saying women should think about what they do to alter themselves before they cast judgement down on guys who are altering themselves.

And mean negging or shoving women's faces into guy's crotch is plain as day too but plenty of people have a bad opinion of them (and rightly so).

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You refuse to accept there is anything to PUA except negging.
At the same time you refuse to accept there is anything to improving your appearance except make up.

But you haven't given any information about what else there is.

And no, I haven't expressed any opinion about plastic surgery, I certainly don't think it doesn't exist. I'm saying it isn't part of normal make up, it's surgery. It's like you comparing getting fit with having heart surgery, they're totally different things.

If your point is that PUA is the equivalent of women having makeover surgery, then yes, I think you may have a point, (but the negging thing is a whole other matter again, and closer to the sort of bullying that happens in the workplace, IMO.)

But you're comparing it to clothes or to makeup, which is just plain silly.

One eyed Jack

Foxtrol wrote: »

So altering you appearance to the point that you nearly unregoniseable without the makeup, fake eyelashes, fake tan, heels, dress that looks slimming (and that's not going into cosmetic surgery) isn't deceiving about who they are.

They're not doing it with the intent of deceiving anyone though. You can't blame a person whom YOU approached, for what you claim is them being deceptive. They didn't set out to deceive you, whereas by employing PUA tactics, you're already approaching them with the intent to deceive them and present a false perception of yourself to them. They haven't approached you, so they are not responsible for your feeling you were deceived.

Give me a list of PUA that are there to undermine the other person.

Names like? There are so many I find it hard to keep track, but to give you an example of some of the nonsense they come out with, their 'students' are fed guff like "women are all whores and sluts, they like to be dominated by alpha males", waffle about evolution and pseudoscience, wrapping psychology up in appealing metaphors, treating both women and men as though there's an arithmetical formula to be cracked that will unlock the secrets of 'the female brain'.

Are you saying ass implants don't exist? Here's a video for you promoting them:

So by your logic it's ok for me to say negative comments about all women who spend money in the beauty industry?

I can't speak for anyone else, but you seem to be asking would it be ok for you to engage in negging? Why, may I ask, would you want to?

Do two wrongs in your opinion make a right? Instead of acknowledging that people find PUA distasteful, you try and justify it on the basis that something else is just as distasteful and expect people to defend that?

That's simply a distraction technique used to divert attention away from what we're actually supposed to be discussing, which is PUA. Women's make-up is another thread entirely. This thread is about men who have appear to have no respect for themselves and no respect for women, and ironically you want to turn it into a thread where you're looking for permission from women to be disrespectful towards women...

That's attractive.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

But you haven't given any information about what else there is.

Ah right, so you don't actually know anything at all about it except you heard somebody say "negging" so you stuck with that as your one and only piece of information and tried your darnest to make a discussion out of it.
Well, anyway. Rumbled.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're not doing it with the intent of deceiving anyone though. You can't blame a person whom YOU approached, for what you claim is them being deceptive. They didn't set out to deceive you, whereas by employing PUA tactics, you're already approaching them with the intent to deceive them and present a false perception of yourself to them. They haven't approached you, so they are not responsible for your feeling you were deceived.

This. Is. Hilarious.
You are claiming girls wearing make up don't approach men? Ever?
Guffaw.
And yes, that's an appropriate answer.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah right, so you don't actually know anything at all about it except you heard somebody say "negging" so you stuck with that as your one and only piece of information and tried your darnest to make a discussion out of it.
Well, anyway. Rumbled.

Hardly rumbled, since one of my first posts on this thread was to ask if my understanding of what PUA was, and what negging was, was correct. It seemed to be, since I have been given no other examples than the ones I mentioned and what is in the video. So I was making no claims to know anything about it other than what I see on here.

You however seem not to read other posters' posts, except to pick out a word here and there that will allow you go off on a rant, or you would have seen that.

Rumbled.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Hardly rumbled, since one of my first posts on this thread was to ask if my understanding of what PUA was, and what negging was, was correct. It seemed to be, since I have been given no other examples than the ones I mentioned and what is in the video. So I was making no claims to know anything about it other than what I see on here.

You however seem not to read other posters' posts, except to pick out a word here and there that will allow you go off on a rant, or you would have seen that.

Rumbled.

You just said PRECISELY that you needed to be told about other parts of PUA besides negging. Better pull the aggression card again huh now you've been shown up!

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You just said PRECISELY that you needed to be told about other parts of PUA besides negging. Better pull the aggression card again huh now you've been shown up!

But you seem unable to name any.

How is it being shown up to ask for information, btw? I never said PUA was only negging, I said I objected to that sort of behaviour for any reason, including as part of PUA. I even gave other examples which I said were just as bad.

But no-one who claims to know about PUA seems able to describe what else it consists of, so I can only assume it is mainly about various manipulative techniques. Since that is the only concrete example we've been given.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This. Is. Hilarious.
You are claiming girls wearing make up don't approach men? Ever?
Guffaw.
And yes, that's an appropriate answer.

How exactly did you interpret that from what I wrote? Because indeed that would be laughable, as laughable as your constant misinterpretation and twisting of people's posts to try and have them defend something they never said.

You're not rumbling anyone, but with each contribution just making yourself look rather foolish. At least Foxtrol is making a credible attempt at discussion whereas you just seem to be more concerned with needing people to acknowledge your perceived superior intellect.

In a discussion about PUAs and the attitudes they display towards other people, I think you're setting a fine example of the kind of mentality that buys into the whole "I am the dominant alpha male" nonsense.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How exactly did you interpret that from what I wrote? Because indeed that would be laughable, as laughable as your constant misinterpretation and twisting of people's posts to try and have them defend something they never said.

You're not rumbling anyone, but with each contribution just making yourself look rather foolish. At least Foxtrol is making a credible attempt at discussion whereas you just seem to be more concerned with needing people to acknowledge your perceived superior intellect.

In a discussion about PUAs and the attitudes they display towards other people, I think you're setting a fine example of the kind of mentality that buys into the whole "I am the dominant alpha male" nonsense.

And your arguments are X and you are the sort of person who Y. Convincing rebuttal or what!
You waffled on about the PUA types' "intent of deceiving" but apparently you don't think women wearing make up are trying to deceive people as to their real beauty. If they don't think it's making them look better than they really are, why do they bother with make up? Don't give us that "for their own sake" nonsense either.
Hey, better call me a something now instead of answering the question. It's almost as if you're simply incapable of addressing the topic in any way whatseoever when you do that, isn't it?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

But you seem unable to name any.

http://www.puatraining.com/blog/pick-up-artist-techniques-you-need-to-master
First match in Google.
You're welcome.
Why did it matter that you have some techniques listed anyway? You claim now to know negging isn't the only PUA technique now, yet you were insisting that was the only one a few pages back. Odd.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And your arguments are X and you are the sort of person who Y. Convincing rebuttal or what!
You waffled on about the PUA types' "intent of deceiving" but apparently you don't think women wearing make up are trying to deceive people as to their real beauty. If the don't think it's making them look better than they really are, why do they bother with make up?

What has women wearing make up got to do with men who follow these PUA 'gurus' and use their advice in order to approach women?

Hey, better call me a something now instead of answering the question. It's almost as if you're simply incapable of addressing the topic in any way whatseoever when you do that, isn't it?

Let's see if you can address the thread topic instead of trying to say "Well if you think X is wrong, rather than me address that, I'll bring up Y instead and tell you what's wrong with that".

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.puatraining.com/blog/pick-up-artist-techniques-you-need-to-master
First match in Google.
You're welcome.
Why did it matter that you have some techniques listed anyway? You claim now to know negging isn't the only PUA technique now, yet you were insisting that was the only one a few pages back. Odd.

That's actually quite creepy. The one about touching could be seriously bad advice to someone who doesn't actually inspire confidence generally - I'd say it's one that could land some guys in the local Garda station by the end of the night!

Here's what I found : http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/23/class-pickup-artist-women-male-anxiety-julien-blanc

It seems pretty much what I suggested earlier - it will seem to "work", due to a simple "numbers" effect for those guys who already can talk to women, but it is mainly a scam aimed at those who can't. That's where the salesmen make the money.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What has women wearing make up got to do with men who follow these PUA 'gurus' and use their advice in order to approach women?

I just explained exactly what! Did you even bother to read my post or just jump straight to "I can't answer... let's pretend he's strawmanning..."?
If PUAs are being deceitful with their approach then women using make up are also just as deceitful. Unless you are claiming women never approach men except when they've no make up on.
Is that really just too complicated for you to even understand, nevermind attempt to form a response?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Let's see if you can address the thread topic instead of trying to say "Well if you think X is wrong, rather than me address that, I'll bring up Y instead and tell you what's wrong with that".

100% explained. You just refuse to get it, presumably as you have no answer.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

That's actually quite creepy. The one about touching could be seriously bad advice to someone who doesn't actually inspire confidence generally - I'd say it's one that could land some guys in the local Garda station by the end of the night!

Here's what I found : http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/23/class-pickup-artist-women-male-anxiety-julien-blanc

It seems pretty much what I suggested earlier - it will seem to "work", due to a simple "numbers" effect for those guys who already can talk to women, but it is mainly a scam aimed at those who can't. That's where the salesmen make the money.

Of course it's creepy to read about how you're being played. Nobody likes to be played. Who knows what the success rate is, there's hardly any stats behind any of it.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Of course it's creepy to read about how you're being played. Nobody likes to be played. Who knows what the success rate is, there's hardly any stats behind any of it.

I've been married for a good few years now, any "playing" being done now is by or on my teenage children, so no, that isn't why I find it creepy.

As for the absence of stats behind it, that just proves my point. Men are paying these people small fortunes to learn how to manipulate women into doing what they want - and they don't even realize that if the person is that good at manipulating people, he's just as likely, of not more so, to be using similar mind-game techniques on them to get them to hand over their cash!

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I've been married for a good few years now, any "playing" being done now is by or on my teenage children, so no, that isn't why I find it creepy.

As for the absence of stats behind it, that just proves my point. Men are paying these people small fortunes to learn how to manipulate women into doing what they want - and they don't even realize that if the person is that good at manipulating people, he's just as likely, of not more so, to be using similar mind-game techniques on them to get them to hand over their cash!

Ah, but if you are admitting that he DOES have techniques for manipulating people, then you are also admitting he COULD teach other people those techniques... so there isn't necessarily any scam at all.
That was the royal "you're" BTW. No need to take it personally.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I just explained exactly what! Did you even bother to read my post or just jump straight to "I can't answer... let's pretend he's strawmanning..."?
If PUAs are being deceitful with their approach then women using make up are also just as deceitful. Unless you are claiming women never approach men except when they've no make up on.
Is that really just too complicated for you to even understand, nevermind attempt to form a response?

100% explained. You just refuse to get it, presumably as you have no answer.

You could only argue that if you knew for a fact that women who wore make up only did so with the intention of making themselves attractive to men. I would contend that the vast majority of women use makeup and bra fillers and spanx and all the rest of it to feel better about themselves, not solely because they want to appear attractive to the opposite sex.

Men who use PUA only do so with the intention of making themselves appear attractive to women. I would contend that is the sole purpose of pick up artistry - to pick up women. If these men approach women wearing makeup who would not have otherwise shown any interest in them, then you can't say these women are intending to deceive you, but these women can point out your attempts to deceive them.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Men who use PUA only do so with the intention of making themselves appear attractive to women. I would contend that is the sole purpose of pick up artistry - to pick up women. If these men approach women wearing makeup who would not have otherwise shown any interest in them, then you can't say these women are intending to deceive you, but these women can point out your attempts to deceive them.

If women wear make up they are attempting to make themselves look better than they really are, whether for themselves or not.
When they then approach a man they are creating a false impression of their beauty, i.e. deceiving.
It's really that simple. Unless, as I said, you think women never approach men?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, but if you are admitting that he DOES have techniques for manipulating people, then you are also admitting he COULD teach other people those techniques... so there isn't necessarily any scam at all.
That was the royal "you're" BTW. No need to take it personally.

Of course it was meant personally, since I had said I found it creepy. It makes no sense otherwise. And there is no royal you. It's we. Which I notice you didn't use.

But the point is that it's a scam because it doesn't work, except with those men who don't really need it in the first place. It "works" (for the seller) because the other men pay him money to let them in on his "secret" too. And that is what it's really about.

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If women wear make up they are attempting to make themselves look better than they really are, whether for themselves or not.
When they then approach a man they are creating a false impression of their beauty, i.e. deceiving.
It's really that simple. Unless, as I said, you think women never approach men?

Of course women approach men, but they're not wearing makeup because they think that particular man will find that particular look attractive. They're not doing any different to a man who takes care of his appearance and wears makeup or a toupee or whatever other physical alterations he makes to his appearance to feel more confident in himself.

With PUA, the deception is more than just what is presented on the surface. You're trying to pretend you're a different person completely. You're not just trying to make yourself more attractive as a person, you're trying to adopt a personality that you think will make you attractive to women (and not just any women, but 'top tier' women who are interested in 'status').

That's not only you deceiving yourself by trying to pretend you're someone you're not, but you're also attempting to deceive the object of your desire by trying to pretend you could be someone that you think she could be interested in.

You're not particularly interested in what's underneath the makeup, as you are in what's underneath her clothes, and you're engaging in deceiving her in order to achieve that aim. I'm not particularly bothered whether you can or can't see what's wrong with that, as I expect that most women are intelligent enough that they don't fall for those immature teenage mentality tactics.

This is also why I find it quite amusing when I see grown men trying to do this PUA crap with grown women, because I know these women personally, and I know that they appreciate honesty and someone who is genuine. They're respectful to any man provided he isn't behaving like a dick and trying to treat them like they have no minds of their own.

That's just disrespectful, and that's why despite their claims of success, none of these 'gurus' are able to interact with women in any meaningful way, hence why they spend their time selling their wares to men who are desperate for an immediate solution to what they see as their immediate need. The men they're selling to lack the self awareness to realise that their issues go much deeper than just being able to be addressed by behaving robotically with women and expecting their knickers will drop, as if they just can't help but be charmed by such a lack of any chemistry or otherwise human interaction that PUAs have been unable to quantify and capitalise on.

Foxtrol

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're not doing it with the intent of deceiving anyone though.

I'll ask you again seeing as the last time I asked you avoided answering. What are they doing it for then? What do they gain?

You can't blame a person whom YOU approached, for what you claim is them being deceptive. They didn't set out to deceive you, whereas by employing PUA tactics, you're already approaching them with the intent to deceive them and present a false perception of yourself to them. They haven't approached you, so they are not responsible for your feeling you were deceived.

So if a woman starts talking to a guy it's ok for them to use PUA techniques because she instigated the conversation?

If a woman approaches a guy and has altered her appearance (in one of the many, many different ways out there) then is she doing something wrong?

Names like? There are so many I find it hard to keep track, but to give you an example of some of the nonsense they come out with, their 'students' are fed guff like "women are all whores and sluts, they like to be dominated by alpha males", waffle about evolution and pseudoscience, wrapping psychology up in appealing metaphors, treating both women and men as though there's an arithmetical formula to be cracked that will unlock the secrets of 'the female brain'.

The poster I was responding to claimed PUA involved 'undermining the other person so as to bring them "down" to their level'. I simply asked them to list these terrible techniques they heard of. If posters want to make claims they need to back them up.

And there's tonnes of stuff out there directed out there claiming what men like in women. How dare they try to box 'the male brain'!!

I can't speak for anyone else, but you seem to be asking would it be ok for you to engage in negging? Why, may I ask, would you want to?

Not sure where you got that from.

The other poster made a claim that it was ok to hurl uneducated comments about all PUA because of what Blanc did, so I simply asked that because there are extreme elements within the beauty industry is it ok for me to make blanket statements about all women who purchase things from any part of the beauty industry. Funny she never answered.

Do two wrongs in your opinion make a right? Instead of acknowledging that people find PUA distasteful, you try and justify it on the basis that something else is just as distasteful and expect people to defend that?

Nope, I don't believe the large majority of either is wrong. I'm pretty consistent with my opinion on both, the extremes are distasteful but that's it.

I acknowledge that some posters haven't performed any research (outside of reading outraged headlines) and have come to the opinion that PUA is distasteful. I also acknowledge that many of these posters hypercritically deceive and manipulate people as often, if not more, than those using PUA techniques but refuse to admit it.

That's simply a distraction technique used to divert attention away from what we're actually supposed to be discussing, which is PUA. Women's make-up is another thread entirely. This thread is about men who have appear to have no respect for themselves and no respect for women, and ironically you want to turn it into a thread where you're looking for permission from women to be disrespectful towards women...

That's attractive.

Pointing out posters hypocritical opinions is a perfectly fine technique. It's especially the case when the most, if not all, of the posters against the topic refuse to listen to people who have actually done research on the topic while still continuously refuse to carry out their own.

I'm not actually looking for permission to do that, I'm using those questions as a device to again point out how hypocritical and possibly sexist these posters are. It's a great example of one rule/set of judgments for men while another for women. So much for equality!

alwald

I didn't know who was this guy before today, watched few videos on youtube about what he does and then came across this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVrHs4voRB0

Apologies if it was posted before, I didn't go through the entire 34 pages.

Foxtrol

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course women approach men, but they're not wearing makeup because they think that particular man will find that particular look attractive. They're not doing any different to a man who takes care of his appearance and wears makeup or a toupee or whatever other physical alterations he makes to his appearance to feel more confident in himself.

With PUA, the deception is more than just what is presented on the surface. You're trying to pretend you're a different person completely. You're not just trying to make yourself more attractive as a person, you're trying to adopt a personality that you think will make you attractive to women (and not just any women, but 'top tier' women who are interested in 'status').

That's not only you deceiving yourself by trying to pretend you're someone you're not, but you're also attempting to deceive the object of your desire by trying to pretend you could be someone that you think she could be interested in.

You're not particularly interested in what's underneath the makeup, as you are in what's underneath her clothes, and you're engaging in deceiving her in order to achieve that aim. I'm not particularly bothered whether you can or can't see what's wrong with that, as I expect that most women are intelligent enough that they don't fall for those immature teenage mentality tactics.

This is also why I find it quite amusing when I see grown men trying to do this PUA crap with grown women, because I know these women personally, and I know that they appreciate honesty and someone who is genuine. They're respectful to any man provided he isn't behaving like a dick and trying to treat them like they have no minds of their own.

That's just disrespectful, and that's why despite their claims of success, none of these 'gurus' are able to interact with women in any meaningful way, hence why they spend their time selling their wares to men who are desperate for an immediate solution to what they see as their immediate need. The men they're selling to lack the self awareness to realise that their issues go much deeper than just being able to be addressed by behaving robotically with women and expecting their knickers will drop, as if they just can't help but be charmed by such a lack of any chemistry or otherwise human interaction that PUAs have been unable to quantify and capitalise on.

This is actually a hilarious post.

Your last few posts have bounced between giving out to men who use PUA tactics for boxing all women under 'the female brain' and treating all women the same and then you go on this rant which does that exact same thing. Telling every guy who has looked at PUA techniques what they're all trying to achieve, what all their problems are, why they're all trying to do it, who they're all trying to target, what they're all interested in. It's really laughable, even worse by the total lack of research you've done on the subject!

volchitsa

Foxtrol wrote: »

The poster I was responding to claimed PUA involved 'undermining the other person so as to bring them "down" to their level'. I simply asked them to list these terrible techniques they heard of. If posters want to make claims they need to back them up.

The other poster made a claim that it was ok to hurl uneducated comments about all PUA because of what Blanc did, so I simply asked that because there are extreme elements within the beauty industry is it ok for me to make blanket statements about all women who purchase things from any part of the beauty industry. Funny she never answered.

I guess you mean me. I didn't answer because I had already dealt with the problem behind that comparison, in fact a couple of times now. More point in me repeating myself if you aren't going to read what I've already posted.

And no, I hurled no "uneducated insults". Quite the opposite - I asked questions about what else it might consist of apart from what is on here, and got quite rude aggressive replies for the most part.
Which is as significant as the eventual link some of the supposed experts finally managed to dig up for me (what I had perhaps naively expected was that some of its proponents might have been able to just, you know, actually express for themselves in a line or two what they thought was positive about it. But apparently the much-vaunted self expression taught in PUA doesn't seem to extend as far as actually expressing oneself, other than by soundbites and posting links.)

Again, I'd say that tells me a great deal about PUA, certainly as much as the advertising linked to earlier did.

volchitsa

Foxtrol wrote: »

This is actually a hilarious post.

Your last few posts have bounced between giving out to men who use PUA tactics for boxing all women under 'the female brain' and treating all women the same and then you go on this rant which does that exact same thing. Telling every guy who has looked at PUA techniques what they're all trying to achieve, what all their problems are, why they're all trying to do it, who they're all trying to target, what they're all interested in. It's really laughable, even worse by the total lack of research you've done on the subject!

So the proponent of PUA earlier who said the men using/learning it would only judge it by whether or not they were "getting the rides" from it, would you say that poster doesn't have a clue about what it's really for?

Foxtrol

volchitsa wrote: »

I guess you mean me. I didn't answer because I had already dealt with the problem behind that comparison, in fact a couple of times now. More point in me repeating myself if you aren't going to read what I've already posted.

And no, I hurled no "uneducated insults". Quite the opposite - I asked questions about what else it might consist of apart from what is on here, and got quite rude aggressive replies for the most part.
Which is as significant as the eventual link some of the supposed experts finally managed to dig up for me (what I had perhaps naively expected was that some of its proponents might have been able to just, you know, actually express for themselves in a line or two what they thought was positive about it. But apparently the much-vaunted self expression taught in PUA doesn't seem to extend as far as actually expressing oneself, other than by soundbites and posting links.)

Again, I'd say that tells me a great deal about PUA, certainly as much as the advertising linked to earlier did.

What I asked was for you to list out the techniques that brought you to such a dislike for PUA. From my count you've mention Blanc and negging out of the thousands of techniques out there, so yes your opinion is uneducated.

There's posts throughout the thread listing the positives of PUA and listing many PUA techniques. If you didn't read the thread then I'm not sure what you want.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

So the proponent of PUA earlier who said the men using/learning it would only judge it by whether or not they were "getting the rides" from it, would you say that poster doesn't have a clue about what it's really for?

Why are you always speaking in absolutes?
PUA could be used for getting more than one thing. Claiming it is only used for the thing I gave as an example is disingenuous but transparently so.

ireland.man

About the interview itself, I wouldn't be surprised if his display of nervousness, his upset and his submissive demeanor were all put on to some extent, another attempt at manipulating how others might perceive him.

Foxtrol

volchitsa wrote: »

So the proponent of PUA earlier who said the men using/learning it would only judge it by whether or not they were "getting the rides" from it, would you say that poster doesn't have a clue about what it's really for?

That's his opinion.

The 'male mind' shouldn't be boxed just because the opinion of some men, just like it's the case for women.

volchitsa

Foxtrol wrote: »

What I asked was for you to list out the techniques that brought you to such a dislike for PUA. From my count you've mention Blanc and negging out of the thousands of techniques out there, so yes your opinion is uneducated.

There's posts throughout the thread listing the positives of PUA and listing many PUA techniques. If you didn't read the thread then I'm not sure what you want.

I have a dislike of any technique that sets out to manipulate other people. I don't like mind games and I don't like people who try to play them. In any domain, not just male-female relationships.

I have seen pieces of advice from the PUA sites etc in the info posted on here that seem absolutely fine, and I have no problem at all with them - except as a punter : if I had paid hard money for them I'd feel very short changed, as they mostly seem blindingly obvious.

What I object to is the mind game stuff, and saying that it's only a part of PUA doesn't diminish my objection to that part of it.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why are you always speaking in absolutes?
PUA could be used for getting more than one thing. Claiming it is only used for the thing I gave as an example is disingenuous but transparently so.

Except you were the one who made that claim, not me. You said that was the only thing the men using it would judge it by. Now you are saying something else are you? It'd be handy if you could decide what though, it's not easy having a discussion with someone who can't make up their mind what their point is.