Julien Blanc gets destroyed in CNN interview

pueblo

Potatoeman wrote: »

I'm casually interested in phycology, social interactions and body language. It can be very interesting to watch for once you recognise some of the social tics people have.

Can you list your top ten tics?

volchitsa

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

Like I said right from the start, it isn't just the fact of using it as a way of getting sex that I dislike about it, it's any form of emotional manipulation of other people that I find objectionable. So how am I boxing in the "male mind" (where did I ever say anything like that, btw?) when my objection to men or women using those techniques to get ahead in work, say, would be just the same?

TheBeardedLady

ireland.man wrote: »

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.

I agree. I don't believe he was sorry or in any way nervous. The guy is a sociopath - sociopaths commonly don't suffer from nerves or feel remorse. The man has all the traits of a sociopath. Truly horrible individual (yes, I've read more on him).

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

There's no doubt that some, even most, men are after sex from PUA techniques. So what? That doesn't mean they all are and why would it make any difference anyway?
Again, your insistence that PUA = X when it can be X, Y or Z means you are incapable of holding a discussion on it.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

There's no doubt that some, even most, men are after sex from PUA techniques. So what? That doesn't mean they all are and why would it make any difference anyway?
Again, your insistence that PUA = X when it can be X, Y or Z means you are incapable of holding a discussion on it.

You seem to have difficulty understanding how discussions work, you really do. The insistence that PUA = X, where X= "getting the rides in" was yours. Not mine. So if there is a problem holding a discussion about the possible uses Y and Z (any chance of some examples, by the way?), you shouldn't have started by claiming it was only about X.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The question is, does this get the rides in or not? If it does I doubt he or his customers give two sheets whether the methods are "questionable" or not.
As an aside, "questionable" means nothing really unless we're told what the question is.

You just said what the question was, it was about sex. Have you now decided that was a mistake?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Like I said right from the start, it isn't just the fact of using it as a way of getting sex that I dislike about it, it's any form of emotional manipulation of other people that I find objectionable.

What part of any human action isn't a manipulation of some sort? Do you feel such disgust every time you see an advertisement?
What about artists, priests and psychiatrists? They try to manipulate emotions all the time. Off with their heads!

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

You seem to have difficulty understanding how discussions work, you really do. The insistence that PUA = X, where X= "getting the rides in" was yours. Not mine. So if there is a problem holding a discussion about the possible uses Y and Z (any chance of some examples, by the way?), you shouldn't have started by claiming it was only about X.

You just said what the question was, it was about sex. Have you now decided that was a mistake?

Most men would be using PUA to get sex, and judging if they got their money's worth on this.
Where did I use the word ONLY? Can you quote me on that? Careful now, "implied", "meant", "obviously" and all that other junk will be squashed flat.
Making stuff up is easy. You're not good enough to get away with it though.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What part of any human action isn't a manipulation of some sort? Do you feel such disgust every time you see an advertisement?
What about artists, priests and psychiatrists? They try to manipulate emotions all the time. Off with their heads!

Can't speak for artists, who are more usually trying to express their own feelings rather than manipulate ours, I'd have thought, but priests and psychiatrists are supposed to be helping people, not using their skills for their own ends, in fact that is why there is a risk of such people becoming abusers, because they could use their skills abusively.

So your "proof" that this already exists actually tends to indicate that (if it isn't a scam) it is actually quite dangerous for society to allow people to think it is acceptable to use mind manipulation techniques on others for their own ends.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Most men would be using PUA to get sex, and judging if they got their money's worth on this.
Where did I use the word ONLY? Can you quote me on that? Careful now, "implied", "meant", "obviously" and all that other junk will be squashed flat.
Making stuff up is easy. You're not good enough to get away with it though.

You do understand what the use of the definite article "the" means? As in "The question is"?

Perhaps you don't really understand the full implications of what you have said yourself, I don't know. But it really was perfectly clear. If it isn't what you meant, you should say so.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Can't speak for artists, who are more usually trying to express their own feelings rather than manipulate ours, I'd have thought, but priests and psychiatrists are supposed to be helping people, not using their skills for their own ends, in fact that is why there is a risk of such people becoming abusers, because they could use their skills abusively.

So your "proof" that this already exists actually tends to indicate that (if it isn't a scam) it is actually quite dangerous for society to allow people to think it is acceptable to use mind manipulation techniques on others for their own ends.

Ah, I see you skipped advertising manipulating emotions completely.
So what if art contains the artist's emotion. It either can or can't affect the viewer's emotion, so if it does you claim to be disgusted by it.
Priests want you to be pray more, psychiatrists want you to be more psychologically well. These are their own ends.
You're saying at the same time PUA techniques don't work, yet they can manipulate people for their own ends. Which is it?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

You do understand what the use of the definite article "the" means? As in "The question is"?

Perhaps you don't really understand the full implications of what you have said yourself, I don't know. But it really was perfectly clear. If it isn't what you meant, you should say so.

Nope, I said exactly what I meant. The question indeed for most men would be whether the PUA methods get them laid or not.
There are no doubt some men who are looking for more than that out of it, but not many I'd say.
This still doesn't make any case that what they are doing is "wrong" any more than trying to get sex by pretending you are more attractive than you really are through using make up.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, I see you skipped advertising manipulating emotions completely.
So what if art contains the artist's emotion. It either can or can't affect the viewer's emotion, so if it does you claim to be disgusted by it.
Priests want you to be pray more, psychiatrists want you to be more psychologically well. These are their own ends.
You're saying at the same time PUA techniques don't work, yet they can manipulate people for their own ends. Which is it?

Advertising, yeah absolutely, I have problems with the same sort of thing, photoshopping top models to make them into impossibly "perfect" shapes, and the rest - but there is legislation and some sort of comeback when these go too far into dishonesty.

If individual relationships are also now going to be built on semi-professional marketing techniques though, I find that a new and deeply worrying development. Not because I think it will work, but because I am sure it won't. But it will cause a lot of distress all the same.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

If individual relationships are also now going to be built on semi-professional marketing techniques though, I find that a new and deeply worrying development. Not because I think it will work, but because I am sure it won't. But it will cause a lot of distress all the same.

So you don't think people's emotions can be manipulated "individually" at all?
Sorry, that's just ridiculous. Of course they can.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nope, I said exactly what I meant. The question indeed for most men would be whether the PUA methods get them laid or not.

But you didn't say "most men", did you?
You said "he or his customers" and you didn't say "one question is". So if that is indeed exactly what you meant, then you are the one talking in absolutes, not me. So it's a bit odd, to say the least, that you are now trying to wriggle out of it.

And objectionable that you try to pretend you never said it.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The question is, does this get the rides in or not? If it does I doubt he or his customers give two sheets whether the methods are "questionable" or not.
As an aside, "questionable" means nothing really unless we're told what the question is.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

But you didn't say "most men", did you?
You said "he or his customers" and you didn't say "one question is". So if that is indeed exactly what you meant, then you are the one talking in absolutes, not me. So it's a bit odd, to say the least, that you are now trying to wriggle out of it.

And objectionable that you try to pretend you never said it.

The question for MOST men IS the most important question, therefore it is THE question. Is it that complicated?
100% of men probably don't use PUA just to get sex. Yeah. So what?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you don't think people's emotions can be manipulated "individually" at all?
Sorry, that's just ridiculous. Of course they can.

No, I don't mean they can't be, I mean it won't work out well for anyone concerned. Relationships between people which are based on some sort of professional mind-gaming can only go wrong for one or both of those concerned. Including just because the person who is trying to use it may end up frustrated that these "techniques" aren't working for him. that would be truly soul destroying, because he has been fooled into believing that they do work, if only he could "do" them right. And of course he can't, so it's a personal failure.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The question for MOST men IS the most important question, therefore it is THE question. Is it that complicated?
100% of men probably don't use PUA just to get sex. Yeah. So what?

So that's not what you said earlier.

Fine. Just don't try passing your own failings off on others, OK? A little bit of honesty, and just manning up to your mistakes will work wonders, especially with women. You should try it sometime.:)

One eyed Jack

Foxtrol wrote: »

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?

They gain self-confidence, that's why they're doing it for themselves, as distinct from PUA which men use to make it appear to women that they are more confident in themselves than they actually are. It's simply an unrealistic ideology and because men can pick and choose what parts of PUA they want to listen to, and ignore what they don't think applies to them, they can often miss crucial points which may have caused them to buy into PUA in the first place.

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

More importantly - do YOU think it's OK to ever use PUA?

If you do, then my saying it isn't is hardly going to change your mind. You're not willing to even attempt to understand why people think it's silly, and you're more interested in justifying PUA as a legitimate way for men to treat women.

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?

She's only doing something wrong if she is approaching a guy with the intention of deceiving him, and by that same token, most guys aren't that thick either that they can't see when someone is attempting to deceive them.

Saying that "women do it too" is just childish tbh and most people would tell you you're only talking out your hole in trying to justify PUA by pointing out that women are deceiving you with their heels and their chicken fillets and their face like an artists palette! :pac:

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.

Yeah, you're just being disingenuous and trying to play down the psychological mumbo jumbo that these gurus try to pass off as effective psychological mind manipulation. It's not just one particular 'technique', but a whole spectrum of behaviours, most of which I've read, but because I passed them off as nonsense, I didn't particularly care to remember any of them, but I know them when I see them in action - it's like "gaslighting made easy" for junior infant level mentality.

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'!!

Erm, I never said that was any better, but the difference is that the magazines and online sites promoting that crap haven't refined and packaged it into a whole lifestyle or way of life to aspire to, whereas these 'gurus' are men in their 20's to 40's still behaving like teenagers whose mental age hasn't kept step with their biological age.

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.

You asked was it ok for you to make negative comments about women in the beauty industry. My guess is you'll do it anyway, and you'll continue to do it, and sure why would you think anyone would care enough to stop you?

I think Kim Kardashian made an awful embarrassment of herself last week when she bared her bare arse to the Internet, and trust me when I say I've already seen the copycat belfies on social media. I would just as much discourage such stupidity as I would discourage the stupidity of anyone following Julien Blancs example.

By all means knock yourself out telling women to cover up their tits and asses, or tell them they don't need to plaster themselves in makeup. I do it all the time. Years later women have said to me they didn't see it at the time and thought I was just being a prude, but as they grew older and matured, they realised that they were worth more than just giving other people what they thought they wanted.

The vast majority of PUA theory still encourages men to objectify women, and teaches them that women objectify men. The vast majority of women don't objectify men at all in the way these 'gurus' purport they do, but because these men already objectify women, that's why they're drawn to PUA theory, and all they learn is how to objectify themselves in order to appeal to women who objectify men.

That's why these encounters are short lived, because two people pretending to be someone they're not, based on what someone else has told them is attractive, can't keep up that pretence for very long without becoming unhappy in themselves as it takes a lot of energy and effort to pretend to be someone you're not - hence, back to square one, and blaming yourself because you didn't try hard enough and apply what you "learned".

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.

If you weren't bothered by the majority of women wearing makeup, then why bring it up at all? Or was that just because it was the only thing you could think of that you could use to say "Well look at what women do, deceiving us men with their wicked ways", because that's exactly what it sounds like - women wear makeup to deceive men, so men have to gain the upper hand somehow.

That's exactly the mentality behind PUA -

"Women are a lesser species, women are subordinate to us alpha males, and if you're a man and you're not with us, you're a beta male, a pussy. Get with the program and become a beta male, we are the dominant ones, it's in our DNA, evolution, psychology clap trap, ad nauseum". The men that buy into that nonsense are buying into it because that's how they view women already, and PUA enforces that, and fosters that mentality.

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.

You don't at all acknowledge that anyone who finds PUA distasteful has done their research. That's the whole point of PUA telling you that you're right and everyone else is wrong. If that were true, PUA would be as prominent as Christianity is today. Instead it's about as prominent as Scientology in comparison. It's actually quite similar to a religion in many respects, but like religion, you can't see the delusion the more devout you are to the whole idea. You'll make every excuse to dismiss 'the minority who give PUA a bad name', even though it's far more than just a minority. Each and every one of it's adherents, the more devout they are, the more deluded they are.

You then try to shift the argument again onto critics of PUA by suggesting that they deceive and manipulate people just as often as those using PUA, as if that makes PUA sound any better? You're admitting it's deceptive and manipulative, and you're trying to say that critics of PUA are just as manipulative and deceitful only in other ways but refuse to admit it?

Well that's just like someone thinking I murdered someone so if they admit to stealing an orange, I should admit to murder, even though it's not true, but what is true is that you've still stolen an orange.

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.

You're not pointing out hypocritical opinions though. You're just making sh1t up, to put it bluntly, in order to say well PUA is bad, but something else is just as bad so PUA is ok.

I've done my research (probably was doing my research before your arse was as big as a shirt button), and because I've done my research it's one of the reasons why I followed this thread, but refused steadfastly to contribute for so long because I figured that just like religion, the disciples, sorry, 'students' of PUA would never be told that it was a load of sh1te and that there was a better way to seek self-improvement that would be much more effective in the long term, but wouldn't be half as exciting. These men don't want to listen to that, they want fast, quick and easy to follow instructions. They want to be told what to do. They fail to see the irony - "How to become a dominant alpha male by being told what to do"...

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!

Seriously? You're some man to be preaching about hypocrisy, sexism and equality while at the same time defending a 'system' that represents the very essence of hypocrisy, sexism and inequality.

PUA has fcukall to do with teaching people to have respect for themselves, let alone other people, and it certainly doesn't value equality, unless by equality you mean making other people feel equally as sh1t about themselves as you do.

If you don't want to be judged for being different, then don't buy into nonsense that claims to be able to give you an easy advantage over everyone else. Nobody likes to feel like they're being manipulated and taken advantage of, and there's no amount of "but look what they're doing!" will make feeling being taken advantage of any more palatable. You wouldn't like anyone taking advantage of you, so why do it to anyone else?

That's the essence of being a dick, and just because Julien Blanc behaves like a bigger dick, doesn't make behaving like a small dick any more pleasant to have to deal with.

Dandy Dandridge

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lmao @ this loser, suddenly when he's questioned for his actions on TV he does a 180 and tries to play it all off as a silly joke. You can see how nervous and insecure he is because he's not his behind a computer screen anymore, probably just realising he and his business is now going to sh!t. The interview is like a school principal chastising a student lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPT5dFHK3wo

lol

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The vast majority of PUA theory still encourages men to objectify women, and teaches them that women objectify men. The vast majority of women don't objectify men at all in the way these 'gurus' purport they do, but because these men already objectify women, that's why they're drawn to PUA theory, and all they learn is how to objectify themselves in order to appeal to women who objectify men.

That's why these encounters are short lived, because two people pretending to be someone they're not, based on what someone else has told them is attractive, can't keep up that pretence for very long without becoming unhappy in themselves as it takes a lot of energy and effort to pretend to be someone you're not - hence, back to square one, and blaming yourself because you didn't try hard enough and apply what you "learned".

These men don't want to listen to that, they want fast, quick and easy to follow instructions. They want to be told what to do. They fail to see the irony - "How to become a dominant alpha male by being told what to do"...

If you don't want to be judged for being different, then don't buy into nonsense that claims to be able to give you an easy advantage over everyone else. Nobody likes to feel like they're being manipulated and taken advantage of, and there's no amount of "but look what they're doing!" will make feeling being taken advantage of any more palatable. You wouldn't like anyone taking advantage of you, so why do it to anyone else?

I just wanted to repost these parts, as they expressed what I've been saying about JB and PUA, only better! (does saying that make me a beta person?? :eek:)

DoYouEvenLift

Dandy Dandridge wrote: »

lol

lol

Foxtrol

volchitsa wrote: »

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 wrote: »

Like I said right from the start, it isn't just the fact of using it as a way of getting sex that I dislike about it, it's any form of emotional manipulation of other people that I find objectionable. So how am I boxing in the "male mind" (where did I ever say anything like that, btw?) when my objection to men or women using those techniques to get ahead in work, say, would be just the same?

Then be specific with what you object to. You're using the one part you object to and using it to beat everyone that has looked at PUA stuff. It's like tarring all Muslims as terrorists, there's no problem with you objecting to the Muslims that are terrorists but you shouldn't be making those broad claims about a large group of people with such a small number of examples as proof.

One eyed Jack

Foxtrol wrote: »

Then be specific with what you object to. You're using the one part you object to and using it to beat everyone that has looked at PUA stuff. It's like tarring all Muslims as terrorists, there's no problem with you objecting to the Muslims that are terrorists but you shouldn't be making those broad claims about a large group of people with such a small number of examples as proof.

You mean like the same broad claims PUA 'gurus' make about large groups of people, with such a small number of examples as proof?

What I object to is simply the idea that these 'gurus' can teach anyone anything about social interactions between people, making even more spurious claims about their effectiveness, and then covering their arses from all liability by claiming they're purely for entertainment. It's the equivalent of those "Don't try this at home kids!" indemnifying themselves of any responsibility for people copying their methods in real life and the consequences of things not going quite as expected.

I object to their dumbing down of men who are desperate enough to think they need this stuff, who think they need other men telling them how to become attractive to women as if they follow a, b, and c, they will become attractive to women. The very problem with this idea is that as you quite rightly point out - RSD Entertainment Inc. is one of the more mainstream proponents, but there are many thousands more 'gurus' all with their own ideas, selling their own ideas with the aim of extracting money from AFCs (granted the terminology is a bit more watered down and wishy washy these days, but the basic premise is still the same as it always was).

I object to men who think well women do this and this, so it's ok for men to do this and this. That's just a bullsh1t justification for behaving like a dick and thinking that women should respond positively to being manipulated by an insecure pretentious twat who's trying to be someone he thinks women should find interesting enough to flatter his ego. PUA does nothing more than encourage superficial interactions and narcissism - compliment her and she'll compliment you back. It doesn't matter that your compliment wasn't genuine, it only matters that she thought it was, and returned what she thought was a genuine compliment. That's manipulation and narcissistic ego soothing behaviour. It's what teenagers do when they seek the approval of their peers.

Most people grow out of it by adulthood by learning from their own experiences and interactions, but if you are, as Julien Blanc says 'socially awkward', this just means you're an adult with the mentality of a teenager - insecure in yourself, no understanding of social interactions, and craving instant validation from your peers (your peers in this case being 'top tier women' and being able to 'score' more of said women than other men).

It's turning what should be an enjoyable interaction with another person, into a competitive sport with an end goal. That's why the first time a friend of mine moved to Manhattan, she couldn't understand why all these guys would come up to her, get her number, and fcuk off basically. What these guys were doing was simply PUA nonsense - approach as many girls as possible, get as many numbers as possible, and you're the "winner". Same experience was echoed by another friend of mine when she spent a few weeks in Florida. Those are just two anecdotes, but my research indicates that the States is rife with this crap among young men. It's a game to them, and it's men competing among themselves for "top dog alpha male dominance", as opposed to self-improvement or entering a relationship at all.

Package it whatever way you want, shift the goalposts whatever way you want, tell people they need to make individual arguments against "thousands of techniques" all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that what you're doing isn't at all anything like "Real Social Dynamics", it's completely staged and artificial, and just because it's becoming more mainstream, doesn't make it any less insidious.

I can laugh at it because I'm not it's target market, I'm long past that nonsense, but I do feel concerned for young men that take this sh1t seriously, and actually not just take it seriously but put it into practice, because they're doing neither women, nor themselves, any favours. The only people actually gaining anything from PUA are these 'gurus' that are selling these 'techniques' as an effective solution to an issue that they're perpetuating - making grown men feel worthless when they already have self-confidence issues. Having grown men measure their self-worth on the basis of the number of women they can manipulate into boosting their ego. That's teenage stuff, and really, if you're still doing that stuff in your 20's it really IS time to grow up, let alone still doing it in your 30's and 40's. That's just sad bastard territory at that stage tbh.

Foxtrol

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They gain self-confidence, that's why they're doing it for themselves, as distinct from PUA which men use to make it appear to women that they are more confident in themselves than they actually are. It's simply an unrealistic ideology and because men can pick and choose what parts of PUA they want to listen to, and ignore what they don't think applies to them, they can often miss crucial points which may have caused them to buy into PUA in the first place.

I don't see the difference. How is makeup giving women real self confidence, when they're using all the beauty tricks as a crutch? I dont see how it's not making them appear more confident in themselves than they actually are when they're hiding their face/body.

More importantly - do YOU think it's OK to ever use PUA?

If you do, then my saying it isn't is hardly going to change your mind. You're not willing to even attempt to understand why people think it's silly, and you're more interested in justifying PUA as a legitimate way for men to treat women.

Yes, it's ok to use most PUA.

I'm fully willing to try to understand why people think it's silly but posters are continuously refusing to give me examples outside of negging and Blanc for why it isn't a legitimate way for men to treat women.

Posters continuously saying how they feel with very little to back it up won't make me change my mind.

She's only doing something wrong if she is approaching a guy with the intention of deceiving him, and by that same token, most guys aren't that thick either that they can't see when someone is attempting to deceive them.

If she approaches a guy and she has altered her appearance then unless she tells him what she's done she's deceiving him.

Once again you're making out that women are stupid and can't see through PUA.

Saying that "women do it too" is just childish tbh and most people would tell you you're only talking out your hole in trying to justify PUA by pointing out that women are deceiving you with their heels and their chicken fillets and their face like an artists palette! :pac:

I'm showing that this is totally natural in our culture.

I've no problem with the majority of the beauty industry.

Yeah, you're just being disingenuous and trying to play down the psychological mumbo jumbo that these gurus try to pass off as effective psychological mind manipulation. It's not just one particular 'technique', but a whole spectrum of behaviours, most of which I've read, but because I passed them off as nonsense, I didn't particularly care to remember any of them, but I know them when I see them in action - it's like "gaslighting made easy" for junior infant level mentality.

No, I'm asking to back up your opinion which you continuously refuse to do.

If they're nonsense then they mustn't work so what's your issue?

Erm, I never said that was any better, but the difference is that the magazines and online sites promoting that crap haven't refined and packaged it into a whole lifestyle or way of life to aspire to, whereas these 'gurus' are men in their 20's to 40's still behaving like teenagers whose mental age hasn't kept step with their biological age.

So your problem is the fact that it's packaged, not the techniques themselves?

It's been pointed out here that many of these 'gurus' have gone through a transformation in their mindset over the years with many now being much more relationship, internal focused.

You asked was it ok for you to make negative comments about women in the beauty industry. My guess is you'll do it anyway, and you'll continue to do it, and sure why would you think anyone would care enough to stop you?

I think Kim Kardashian made an awful embarrassment of herself last week when she bared her bare arse to the Internet, and trust me when I say I've already seen the copycat belfies on social media. I would just as much discourage such stupidity as I would discourage the stupidity of anyone following Julien Blancs example.

By all means knock yourself out telling women to cover up their tits and asses, or tell them they don't need to plaster themselves in makeup. I do it all the time. Years later women have said to me they didn't see it at the time and thought I was just being a prude, but as they grew older and matured, they realised that they were worth more than just giving other people what they thought they wanted.

See I dont do that, you're the one tarnishing all men involved in PUA.

The vast majority of PUA theory still encourages men to objectify women, and teaches them that women objectify men. The vast majority of women don't objectify men at all in the way these 'gurus' purport they do, but because these men already objectify women, that's why they're drawn to PUA theory, and all they learn is how to objectify themselves in order to appeal to women who objectify men.

Some men do objectify women and some women objectify men, this is the way the world has always been.

PUA gives a framework to work around but any legitimate looking source I've seen says to treat each woman as an individual.

That's why these encounters are short lived, because two people pretending to be someone they're not, based on what someone else has told them is attractive, can't keep up that pretence for very long without becoming unhappy in themselves as it takes a lot of energy and effort to pretend to be someone you're not - hence, back to square one, and blaming yourself because you didn't try hard enough and apply what you "learned".

But they aren't all short lived though. PUA techniques wont last longterm and neither is a woman who uses tricks to hide her true appearance but they're not supposed to.

If you weren't bothered by the majority of women wearing makeup, then why bring it up at all? Or was that just because it was the only thing you could think of that you could use to say "Well look at what women do, deceiving us men with their wicked ways", because that's exactly what it sounds like - women wear makeup to deceive men, so men have to gain the upper hand somehow.

Because it's shines a light on how hypocritical you are.

I'm all about people improving themselves if that's what is going to make them happy.

That's exactly the mentality behind PUA -

"Women are a lesser species, women are subordinate to us alpha males, and if you're a man and you're not with us, you're a beta male, a pussy. Get with the program and become a beta male, we are the dominant ones, it's in our DNA, evolution, psychology clap trap, ad nauseum". The men that buy into that nonsense are buying into it because that's how they view women already, and PUA enforces that, and fosters that mentality.

That's not the overarching mentality of current mainstream PUA though.

You don't at all acknowledge that anyone who finds PUA distasteful has done their research. That's the whole point of PUA telling you that you're right and everyone else is wrong. If that were true, PUA would be as prominent as Christianity is today. Instead it's about as prominent as Scientology in comparison. It's actually quite similar to a religion in many respects, but like religion, you can't see the delusion the more devout you are to the whole idea. You'll make every excuse to dismiss 'the minority who give PUA a bad name', even though it's far more than just a minority. Each and every one of it's adherents, the more devout they are, the more deluded they are.

If it's far from the minority give me examples.

Time and again you make these sweeping statements but refuse to back them up. How am I supposed to change my opinion when all you do is say how you with no evidence?

You then try to shift the argument again onto critics of PUA by suggesting that they deceive and manipulate people just as often as those using PUA, as if that makes PUA sound any better? You're admitting it's deceptive and manipulative, and you're trying to say that critics of PUA are just as manipulative and deceitful only in other ways but refuse to admit it?

Well that's just like someone thinking I murdered someone so if they admit to stealing an orange, I should admit to murder, even though it's not true, but what is true is that you've still stolen an orange.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I'm saying the world is full of deceit and manipulation, especially the dating scene. I'm saying that PUA is no worse than a lot of the rest of it.

You're not pointing out hypocritical opinions though. You're just making sh1t up, to put it bluntly, in order to say well PUA is bad, but something else is just as bad so PUA is ok.

I'm not saying either is bad. You're the one saying one is bad but the other is fine.

I've done my research (probably was doing my research before your arse was as big as a shirt button), and because I've done my research it's one of the reasons why I followed this thread, but refused steadfastly to contribute for so long because I figured that just like religion, the disciples, sorry, 'students' of PUA would never be told that it was a load of sh1te and that there was a better way to seek self-improvement that would be much more effective in the long term, but wouldn't be half as exciting. These men don't want to listen to that, they want fast, quick and easy to follow instructions. They want to be told what to do. They fail to see the irony - "How to become a dominant alpha male by being told what to do"...

Once again if it doesn't work then what's your issue. You're trying to sit on both sides of the fence, one minute it's deceitful and manipulative and the next it's 'a load of sh1te'.

Seriously? You're some man to be preaching about hypocrisy, sexism and equality while at the same time defending a 'system' that represents the very essence of hypocrisy, sexism and inequality.

PUA has fcukall to do with teaching people to have respect for themselves, let alone other people, and it certainly doesn't value equality, unless by equality you mean making other people feel equally as sh1t about themselves as you do.

If you don't want to be judged for being different, then don't buy into nonsense that claims to be able to give you an easy advantage over everyone else. Nobody likes to feel like they're being manipulated and taken advantage of, and there's no amount of "but look what they're doing!" will make feeling being taken advantage of any more palatable. You wouldn't like anyone taking advantage of you, so why do it to anyone else?

That's the essence of being a dick, and just because Julien Blanc behaves like a bigger dick, doesn't make behaving like a small dick any more pleasant to have to deal with.

How is making people feel equally as sh1t about themselves? Are we back to negging again? Seriously?

I dont see it as taking advantage though. If a girl comes up to me who is stunning and we talk and find we get on really well and I really like her I'm not going to think I've been taken advantage of if she doesn't look quite as attractive the next morning. Similarly, I dont think a woman is going to feel taken advantage of if she ends up finding out she really likes a guy who may have used a few PUA techniques during their initial conversation.

Foxtrol

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's turning what should be an enjoyable interaction with another person, into a competitive sport with an end goal. That's why the first time a friend of mine moved to Manhattan, she couldn't understand why all these guys would come up to her, get her number, and fcuk off basically. What these guys were doing was simply PUA nonsense - approach as many girls as possible, get as many numbers as possible, and you're the "winner". Same experience was echoed by another friend of mine when she spent a few weeks in Florida. Those are just two anecdotes, but my research indicates that the States is rife with this crap among young men. It's a game to them, and it's men competing among themselves for "top dog alpha male dominance", as opposed to self-improvement or entering a relationship at all.

The US culture is just different when it comes to numbers. When you're in a bar and you talk to the opposite sex most of the time numbers will be exchanged mostly regardless of what the interest is for either party. Men will get numbers from women who they have no intention of texting, while women give their numbers to men who they have little intention of texting the men back. It's pretty much a politeness thing, where neither party wants to show they're not interested.

One eyed Jack

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't see the difference. How is makeup giving women real self confidence, when they're using all the beauty tricks as a crutch? I dont see how it's not making them appear more confident in themselves than they actually are when they're hiding their face/body.

I never said it gave them real self-confidence. I was simply countering your assertion that they do it with the intention of deceiving men. You're trying to say that women only wear makeup to attract men and that's simply untrue.

Can you say the same about men who use PUA techniques, that they're not doing it with the intention of attracting women? I don't think you can.

Yes, it's ok to use most PUA.

I'm fully willing to try to understand why people think it's silly but posters are continuously refusing to give me examples outside of negging and Blanc for why it isn't a legitimate way for men to treat women.

Posters continuously saying how they feel with very little to back it up won't make me change my mind.

I don't think you get that it's the whole concept itself that people find repulsive, the idea that these people encourage impressionable young men to reduce social interaction to an idea that they need to be instructed in how to show people respect, what does that say about these men? What does it say about their ideas about women? They talk about "giving value", when they don't even understand the basic premise of treating people with respect. How is that a legitimate way to treat women?

If she approaches a guy and she has altered her appearance then unless she tells him what she's done she's deceiving him.

She hasn't altered her appearance specifically FOR him though, whereas the guy who does PUA is altering his behaviour to appear more attractive specifically to that particular girl based on what he thinks she will find attractive in that particular situation.

Once again you're making out that women are stupid and can't see through PUA.

Don't you start and all twisting my words and expecting me to defend something I never said nor even implied.

No, I'm asking to back up your opinion which you continuously refuse to do.

If they're nonsense then they mustn't work so what's your issue?

Does the name "Eliot Rogers" mean anything to you?

And Reddit is infested with this sh1te of men who have completely bought into this stuff and idolise PUA in a way that's quite unsettling, and to read how they practice these "techniques" on women is facepalm inducing stuff, the way they talk about PUA as if it's a competition and the inflation of their ego is the prize, and their displays of their dominance over women is the way to achieve their prize.

So your problem is the fact that it's packaged, not the techniques themselves?

The way it's packaged, and the fact there even are 'techniques' for interacting with women is my problem with it. They're still treating women as though they are mere objects, pawns in a game they may not even be aware is being played on them. It's cruel and manipulative behaviour and it's fostering sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies in young men that they think this is the way women deserve to be treated - mere amusements for their own entertainment and self-gratification.

It's been pointed out here that many of these 'gurus' have gone through a transformation in their mindset over the years with many now being much more relationship, internal focused.

They've had to change their marketing strategy is all, as their future earnings are dependent upon their ability to adapt their programmes to suit shifting social attitudes. That's why they've gone from a more hard line "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" approach, to a more dare I say "be positive, be random, be funny" approach. You can't teach someone to be spontaneous when it isn't in their nature to be spontaneous or extroverted. You can certainly fool them into thinking you can teach them these techniques though, and that's all any of the modern PUA stuff is doing.

Some men do objectify women and some women objectify men, this is the way the world has always been.

Do you think this objectification is a healthy mindset with which to view other people? I would say it's a very unhealthy mindset myself, and without it, PUA wouldn't exist, because there would be no market for it.

PUA gives a framework to work around but any legitimate looking source I've seen says to treat each woman as an individual.

See this is why I didn't bother giving examples. You're now going to tell me there's such a thing as legitimate PUA, and illegitimate PUA, and you're going to tell me that people know the same differences that you do, and everyone who follows the legitimate stuff is a nice PUA guy, and everyone who follows the illegitimate PUA are the guys that give PUA a bad name, right?

Your opinion of what's legitimate and what isn't might not be someone else's opinion of what's legitimate and what isn't. As you said yourself, there are thousands of techniques, perhaps hundreds of programmes, bootcamps, seminars, DVDs, books, websites, and I'd say you're only likely scratching the surface with the mainstream online stuff.

But they aren't all short lived though. PUA techniques wont last longterm and neither is a woman who uses tricks to hide her true appearance but they're not supposed to.

Eh? They're bloody marketing this stuff as being supposed to change your life and last you a lifetime, and now they're even offering not just dating advice, but career and business advice too! They're changing their marketing strategy to appeal to more markets! Me personally I wouldn't take career nor business advice from them in a fit, let alone dating advice.

Not sure what point you were trying to make about the beauty industry as if they've never peddled their products as the secret to eternal youth and beauty. That's what they've always done, and when product sales are falling, they come out with a new product that promises to deliver the goods for a lifetime. No different than PUA marketers.

Because it's shines a light on how hypocritical you are.

Shine all you want, there's no hypocrisy here, I'm as skeptical and critical of the beauty and fashion industry as I am of PUA and any industry which profits from fostering and exploiting people's insecurities.

I'm all about people improving themselves if that's what is going to make them happy.

Does it though? You've already admitted that PUA isn't a long term strategy, and we're both agreed that there's no fountain of youth to be found in the beauty and fashion industry, so obviously it's a question of something much deeper than just being told to behave a certain way or being told that this product will change how other people see you. Clearly happiness is something that has to come from within the person themselves and has to last them a lot longer than their youthful looks do, so I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that one?

That's not the overarching mentality of current mainstream PUA though.

Actually it is, unless you're trying to tell me that RSD aren't a mainstream PUA source, or that PUAhate aren't a mainstream PUA source, or that ROK aren't a mainstream PUA source, or that Reddit subs aren't a mainstream PUA source...

If it's far from the minority give me examples.

See above.

Time and again you make these sweeping statements but refuse to back them up. How am I supposed to change my opinion when all you do is say how you with no evidence?

I simply have neither the time nor the inclination to go posting half the sh1te that gets posted on the Internet about this stuff. If you want to claim that must mean it doesn't exist, fair enough. If you want to claim that I am simply unwilling to provide evidence that a cursory Google search would give you, fair enough.

I'm saying the world is full of deceit and manipulation, especially the dating scene. I'm saying that PUA is no worse than a lot of the rest of it.

If that's genuinely your view of the world, then I don't think anyone would be incorrect in surmising it's a fairly depressing and negative view of the world, and a fairly depressing and negative view of other people, and so for me at least, it's easy to see why you would find PUA so appealing - because you're so easily convinced that having this 'knowledge' gives you a superior advantage over other people, feeding directly into your negative and depressing view of the world and your view of other people.

Just because you feel PUA isn't any worse than something else, that doesn't mean that in reality it actually does anyone any good. The facts speak for themselves - manipulation of other people is dickish and inexcusable behaviour.

You might not see any harm right now in manipulating other people to your advantage, but if that's what you think is an attractive quality in a person, you couldn't be more wide of the mark.

I'm not saying either is bad. You're the one saying one is bad but the other is fine.

I never said either was fine. I said you couldn't compare the two as they're not a like for like comparison. You're trying to say women wear makeup with the intention of deceiving men in the same way as men use PUA to deceive women. I'm telling you that women don't wear makeup to deceive men, whereas men use PUA to deceive women. You don't want to accept that. Fair enough.

Once again if it doesn't work then what's your issue. You're trying to sit on both sides of the fence, one minute it's deceitful and manipulative and the next it's 'a load of sh1te'.

How about it's a deceitful and manipulative load of sh1te that doesn't do what it claims it can do? In that respect it's no different to makeup manufacturers that make fantastic claims about being able to make your skin look ten years younger. People buy it based on those claims, they often ignore the small print that says it's for entertainment purposes only, or that the makeup will only work as part of a whole bloody lifestyle change!

How is making people feel equally as sh1t about themselves? Are we back to negging again? Seriously?

You have a sh1tty view of the world and other people. Do you honestly think that you can hide that for long from anyone you come in contact with? You're going to rub off on them like fcuking sandpaper. That's going to have an additional negative effect on your own self-worth and going to give you an even sh1ttier more negative view of the world and other people when you can't keep up the pretence any longer. Just like a girl when the makeup comes off, eventually the cracks appear in your façade too, and more often than not - sooner rather than later.

I dont see it as taking advantage though. If a girl comes up to me who is stunning and we talk and find we get on really well and I really like her I'm not going to think I've been taken advantage of if she doesn't look quite as attractive the next morning. Similarly, I dont think a woman is going to feel taken advantage of if she ends up finding out she really likes a guy who may have used a few PUA techniques during their initial conversation.

Just because you might be ok with one thing, doesn't mean someone else is equally going to be ok with something she sees as something entirely different. The fact you'd see her as a hypocrite because of this doesn't bode well for a possible relationship between the two of you.

Now, I'd only be going round in circles if I posted any more in this thread. You can take it or leave it as is, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm done here.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

So that's not what you said earlier.

Fine. Just don't try passing your own failings off on others, OK? A little bit of honesty, and just manning up to your mistakes will work wonders, especially with women. You should try it sometime.:)

Yes, what I said is entirely consistent. Since it is the question for the vast majority of PUA method users, it is THE question.
I see now you've resorted to saying that's different to what I said though you don't appear to be able to say why. A common tactic really .
BTW I already said I have no problems with women. Another cheap ad hominem anyway to deflect from your lost argument.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, what I said is entirely consistent. Since it is the question for the vast majority of PUA method users, it is THE question.
I see now you've resorted to saying that's different to what I said though you don't appear to be able to say why. A common tactic really .
BTW I already said I have no problems with women. Why would I take the advice of people who can't even read?

Jeez, no wonder you think PUA is great, you are totally self-deceiving, you must be exactly their target audience. You didn't say the vast majority (itself a change from your earlier attempt at implying that picking up women was only one of many reasons men would use PUA) you said "the question (ie the only one) for
him and his followers (ie all of them) was "does it get the rides in".

I can't help what you said, and you lying about it now fools no-one except yourself (possibly), since it's available for all to see.

More importantly, you are still ignoring the fact that right from the start I pointed out that my objection was to all forms of mind games played on unsuspecting others, not particularly PUA. I just think it is particularly sad that cynical men are exploiting inadequate males by telling them that they can transform their lives with a few cheap tricks that can only possibly work on naive and vulnerable young women who can't see through them.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Jeez, no wonder you think PUA is great, you are totally self-deceiving, you must be exactly their target audience. You didn't say the vast majority (itself a change from your earlier attempt at implying that picking up women was only one of many reasons men would use PUA) you said "the question (ie the only one) for
him and his followers (ie all of them) was "does it get the rides in".

As predicted, you couldn't make any case that I was lying without using any qualifiers to pretend I "implied" something that unfortunately for you I never said. Stay predictable! To avoid your seeming bewilderment when confronted with common English expressions, saying something is "THE question" doesn't mean something is "THE ONLY question". You have to add an extra word for that you see, which would be misquoting and therefore lying.

volchitsa wrote: »

I can't help what you said, and you lying about it now fools no-one except yourself (possibly), since it's available for all to see.

Right back at ya. You simply couldn't make any case about what I said without the laughable implied and pathetic (qualifiers).

volchitsa wrote: »

More importantly, you are still ignoring the fact that right from the start I pointed out that my objection was to all forms of mind games played on unsuspecting others, not particularly PUA. I just think it is particularly sad that cynical men are exploiting inadequate males by telling them that they can transform their lives with a few cheap tricks that can only possibly work on naive and vulnerable young women who can't see through them.

Oh, I see, now it's "can only possibly work on naive and vulnerable young women". That's totally different to what you said earlier about emotional manipulation never working, except, bizarrely, on the men attending PUA classes themselves. Now that's changing a story, if you really want an example.
So, in the entirety of human interactions, the only emotional manipulation you seem to (now) want to admit exist are:
1. PUAs on "naive and vulnerable young women" (what if they are naive and vulnerable but old? Want to change your story again?)
2. PUA gurus on PUA students.
Sure. No other emotional manipulation anywhere else, ever. Yeah. Got it.

Dan_Solo

There was another post and a reply to it here a minute ago?

Mr E

Rereg (and reply).

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As predicted, you couldn't make any case that I was lying without using any qualifiers to pretend I "implied" something that unfortunately for you I never said. Stay predictable! To avoid your seeming bewilderment when confronted with common English expressions, saying something is "THE question" doesn't mean something is "THE ONLY question". You have to add an extra word for that you see, which would be misquoting and therefore lying.

Right back at ya. You simply couldn't make any case about what I said without the laughable implied and pathetic (qualifiers).

Oh, I see, now it's "can only possibly work on naive and vulnerable young women". That's totally different to what you said earlier about emotional manipulation never working, except, bizarrely, on the men attending PUA classes themselves. Now that's changing a story, if you really want an example.
So, in the entirety of human interactions, the only emotional manipulation you seem to (now) want to admit exist are:
1. PUAs on "naive and vulnerable young women" (what if they are naive and vulnerable but old? Want to change your story again?)
2. PUA gurus on PUA students.
Sure. No other emotional manipulation anywhere else, ever. Yeah. Got it.

This is such a load of misrepresentation of what both you and I have actually posted on here, as well as factually incorrect, that there is no point in me engaging further with you.
Other than to tell you to get a f-king grammar book and look up the use of quantifiers and the definite article. You said what you said, and the only person trying to deny that now is you.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

This is such a load of misrepresentation of what both you and I have actually posted on here, as well as factually incorrect, that there is no point in me engaging further with you.
Other than to tell you to get a f-king grammar book and look up the use of quantifiers and the definite article. You said what you said, and the only person trying to deny that now is you.

Obviously I touched a raw nerve illustrating your devious claimed implications and additional qualifiers of my posts to attempt to make your point. So throw in an expletive and take your ball home with you... yeah, you really proved your case there! LOL!

PopePalpatine

Mr E wrote: »

Rereg (and reply).

I kind of wished the re-reg made a thread in Prison, it would be interesting...or frustrating.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Obviously I touched a raw nerve illustrating your devious claimed implications and additional qualifiers of my posts to attempt to make your point. So throw in an expletive and take your ball home with you... yeah, you really proved your case there! LOL!

Projection, much? The qualifiers were all yours - you said you didn't actually mean all men, or the only question, you meant some men (then, you said it as "the vast majority of men, again, more moving of those goalposts!) and "one of the questions".

Those are qualifiers.
All I did was try (in vain) to explain to you the significance of what you had said. I didn't qualify anything I had said. For one thing, because what I said wasn't in question, it was you who were trying to pretend you hadn't said what you did.

Anyway, you either genuinely don't understand the use of language, or you are being dishonest. Either way, I'm done. If you want to pretend that means you win go right ahead, I'm happy with what you and I have both posted here.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Anyway, you either genuinely don't understand the use of language, or you are being dishonest. Either way, I'm done. If you want to pretend that means you win go right ahead, I'm happy with what you and I have both posted here.

Totally happy with what I have posted too. If you want to magically put the word "only" after any definite article that's up to you really. It doesn't change what I have posted, only your wilful misinterpretation of it.
Makes you wonder why the word "only" exists when apparently every time you see the word "the" it really means "the only"...
Oh, when you use "f-king" it's a bit rich saying that's me projecting my alleged aggression. A completely bizarre conclusion on your behalf.

Foxtrol

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said it gave them real self-confidence. I was simply countering your assertion that they do it with the intention of deceiving men. You're trying to say that women only wear makeup to attract men and that's simply untrue.

Can you say the same about men who use PUA techniques, that they're not doing it with the intention of attracting women? I don't think you can.

Yes I can, it gives them self confidence. This self confidence can be used in many aspects of life. Women altering their appearance attracts men but they can you the self confidence in other aspects of life.

Even if I agreed with you that men were altering themselves for just a brief period, the fact that you think it's somehow healthier for most women to need to alter themselves by differing degrees everyday before leaving the house is quite strange. Surely someone putting on a mask continuously is a lot worse than someone who can only keep it up for a very short time.

I don't think you get that it's the whole concept itself that people find repulsive, the idea that these people encourage impressionable young men to reduce social interaction to an idea that they need to be instructed in how to show people respect, what does that say about these men? What does it say about their ideas about women? They talk about "giving value", when they don't even understand the basic premise of treating people with respect. How is that a legitimate way to treat women?

But posters are continuously unable to give examples of as why they find the whole concept of it repulsive. How am I supposed to understand when all they are repeating is regurgitated feelings evoked from headlines?

She hasn't altered her appearance specifically FOR him though, whereas the guy who does PUA is altering his behaviour to appear more attractive specifically to that particular girl based on what he thinks she will find attractive in that particular situation.

That's just semantics and even if I go by your logic how its that less 'repulsive' as she's doing it to every guys she meets that night whereas a guy might try one PUA technique on one woman?

Just because her appearance is 'one she made earlier' she's still manipulating them.

Don't you start and all twisting my words and expecting me to defend something I never said nor even implied.

You did. You stated that it's ok for women to alter their appearance because men aren't 'thick' enough to not be able to tell when someone is trying to deceive them but you don't give women the same sort of respect for their intelligence.

What makes a man able to be smart enough to notice deceit but women incapable?

Does the name "Eliot Rogers" mean anything to you?

And Reddit is infested with this sh1te of men who have completely bought into this stuff and idolise PUA in a way that's quite unsettling, and to read how they practice these "techniques" on women is facepalm inducing stuff, the way they talk about PUA as if it's a competition and the inflation of their ego is the prize, and their displays of their dominance over women is the way to achieve their prize.

If you're going to try to equate an insane, suicidal school shooter to guys who use PUA techniques you've officially lost the argument. It's like me comparing a woman putting on a bit of makeup in the morning to Valeria Lukyanova.

Wow, there are guys who are dicks on reddit. Great detective work! Once again trying to link all guys who use PUA techniques with the lowest common denominator.

The way it's packaged, and the fact there even are 'techniques' for interacting with women is my problem with it. They're still treating women as though they are mere objects, pawns in a game they may not even be aware is being played on them. It's cruel and manipulative behaviour and it's fostering sociopathic and narcissistic tendencies in young men that they think this is the way women deserve to be treated - mere amusements for their own entertainment and self-gratification.

There are techniques out there every week in magazines and books sold on shop shelves for how women should interact with men but they get none of this 'repulsion'. It's total double standards.

They've had to change their marketing strategy is all, as their future earnings are dependent upon their ability to adapt their programmes to suit shifting social attitudes. That's why they've gone from a more hard line "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" approach, to a more dare I say "be positive, be random, be funny" approach. You can't teach someone to be spontaneous when it isn't in their nature to be spontaneous or extroverted. You can certainly fool them into thinking you can teach them these techniques though, and that's all any of the modern PUA stuff is doing.

So you've an issue with old PUA then. Get a time machine for your repulsion then.

You pretty much admitted that guys who want to use PUA techniques don't want that 'hard line' approach. So I dont see what your problem is now. Once again you're jumping all over the place.

Do you think this objectification is a healthy mindset with which to view other people? I would say it's a very unhealthy mindset myself, and without it, PUA wouldn't exist, because there would be no market for it.

I don't know you definition of objectification? There's a wide spectrum and it is never going to disappear.

If you're trying to imply that all men who use PUA techniques see women as a number to ride and move on then you're unbelievably incorrect.

See this is why I didn't bother giving examples. You're now going to tell me there's such a thing as legitimate PUA, and illegitimate PUA, and you're going to tell me that people know the same differences that you do, and everyone who follows the legitimate stuff is a nice PUA guy, and everyone who follows the illegitimate PUA are the guys that give PUA a bad name, right?

Your opinion of what's legitimate and what isn't might not be someone else's opinion of what's legitimate and what isn't. As you said yourself, there are thousands of techniques, perhaps hundreds of programmes, bootcamps, seminars, DVDs, books, websites, and I'd say you're only likely scratching the surface with the mainstream online stuff.

Well if you said that the idea of Islam repulses you because they are all terrorists then I'd expect someone would make you provide proof of this.

You're saying the idea of PUA repulses you and you continuous make broad sweeping comments about the guys who use the techniques yet you've provided nothing except how your feelings and a school shooter and guys on reddit.

Eh? They're bloody marketing this stuff as being supposed to change your life and last you a lifetime, and now they're even offering not just dating advice, but career and business advice too! They're changing their marketing strategy to appeal to more markets! Me personally I wouldn't take career nor business advice from them in a fit, let alone dating advice.

Not sure what point you were trying to make about the beauty industry as if they've never peddled their products as the secret to eternal youth and beauty. That's what they've always done, and when product sales are falling, they come out with a new product that promises to deliver the goods for a lifetime. No different than PUA marketers.

My point is that women cant hide their true appearance from a guy forever and it's the same for these 'manipulative' PUA techniques to get girls. The likes of confidence and body language stuff can last a lifetime but I've never seen a claim that they can give you a day to day, step by step guide through a relationship.

Shine all you want, there's no hypocrisy here, I'm as skeptical and critical of the beauty and fashion industry as I am of PUA and any industry which profits from fostering and exploiting people's insecurities.

You're skeptical and critical of the beauty and fashion industry which promotes women altering their appearance every time they step outside the door (and sometimes inside) yet you're 'repulsed' by the idea of PUA, which promotes altering your personalty for brief periods.

Sounds to me like double standards.

Does it though? You've already admitted that PUA isn't a long term strategy, and we're both agreed that there's no fountain of youth to be found in the beauty and fashion industry, so obviously it's a question of something much deeper than just being told to behave a certain way or being told that this product will change how other people see you. Clearly happiness is something that has to come from within the person themselves and has to last them a lot longer than their youthful looks do, so I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that one?

If it allows them to get over an issue they're having (mostly confidence problems) then I'm all for it. If a man/woman don't have the confidence in themselves to approach someone they could be perfect for I think it's pretty sad.

It's not a magic pill that's going to fix everything in their lives but it is a small step. Neither probably wouldn't be as needed if the world wasn't as harsh as it is but you could wait and hope things work out for you or go out and try to get over your issues.

Actually it is, unless you're trying to tell me that RSD aren't a mainstream PUA source, or that PUAhate aren't a mainstream PUA source, or that ROK aren't a mainstream PUA source, or that Reddit subs aren't a mainstream PUA source...

I've looked at RSD stuff and it's not all Blanc type stuff. He was wrong with what he did but to try to make out everything he's ever said was along the lines of the extreme stuff he's gotten in trouble for, to paint it that way is very misleading (unless I've missed a large proportion of their work).

PUAhate is pretty much anti mainstream PUA.

ROK is more anti hardcore feminist groups than anything.

I see aside from RSD it's pretty much links to loopers on the internet as sources. It's hardly what I'd called mainstream and definitely not sources where guys are paying money to get 'sucked into'.

It's once again looking to me that you're judging all guys who use PUA techniques off what some internet warriors post. It's very unfair.

I simply have neither the time nor the inclination to go posting half the sh1te that gets posted on the Internet about this stuff. If you want to claim that must mean it doesn't exist, fair enough. If you want to claim that I am simply unwilling to provide evidence that a cursory Google search would give you, fair enough.

Again, you're using your angry young men websites your repulsion is misdirected. You should be repulsed by these men, not all PUA.

If that's genuinely your view of the world, then I don't think anyone would be incorrect in surmising it's a fairly depressing and negative view of the world, and a fairly depressing and negative view of other people, and so for me at least, it's easy to see why you would find PUA so appealing - because you're so easily convinced that having this 'knowledge' gives you a superior advantage over other people, feeding directly into your negative and depressing view of the world and your view of other people.

Just because you feel PUA isn't any worse than something else, that doesn't mean that in reality it actually does anyone any good. The facts speak for themselves - manipulation of other people is dickish and inexcusable behaviour.

You might not see any harm right now in manipulating other people to your advantage, but if that's what you think is an attractive quality in a person, you couldn't be more wide of the mark.

Once again I'll state that I've only looked at PUA stuff, I don't actively do it aside from things that I'd already have done before looking into it.

You throw around terms like manipulation so easily and also as if it's toxic. What do you mean by manipulation?

Is the fact that I use open body language manipulation? Is that I avoid certain topics of conversation that I'm interested in but I don't think she'd be manipulation? Is knowing how to keep her annoying friend happy while I talk to her manipulation?

Again you're pointing to the most extreme forms and sources of PUA and saying the whole thing is repulsive. You need to accept there is a spectrum and trying to brand the whole of PUA because of the extremes is just wrong.

I never said either was fine. I said you couldn't compare the two as they're not a like for like comparison. You're trying to say women wear makeup with the intention of deceiving men in the same way as men use PUA to deceive women. I'm telling you that women don't wear makeup to deceive men, whereas men use PUA to deceive women. You don't want to accept that. Fair enough.

As I said earlier, just because her appearance is 'one she made earlier' doesn't reduce the deception.

How about it's a deceitful and manipulative load of sh1te that doesn't do what it claims it can do? In that respect it's no different to makeup manufacturers that make fantastic claims about being able to make your skin look ten years younger. People buy it based on those claims, they often ignore the small print that says it's for entertainment purposes only, or that the makeup will only work as part of a whole bloody lifestyle change!

Dealt with this earlier. PUA doesn't give you step by step guides through a full relationship so if you're saying it claims that this is guaranteed then you're wrong.

You have a sh1tty view of the world and other people. Do you honestly think that you can hide that for long from anyone you come in contact with? You're going to rub off on them like fcuking sandpaper. That's going to have an additional negative effect on your own self-worth and going to give you an even sh1ttier more negative view of the world and other people when you can't keep up the pretence any longer. Just like a girl when the makeup comes off, eventually the cracks appear in your façade too, and more often than not - sooner rather than later.

You're the one who claimed that guys using PUA made other people sh1tty about themselves. If you're trying to say that a guy feeling sh1tty about himself is going to make a woman who just met him feel sh1tty about herself, you're once giving women very little credit.

Could PUA make guys feel worse about themselves if it doesn't work? Possibly, like anytime someone tries something and fails. Does this make every guy who uses it repulsive, not at all.

Just because you might be ok with one thing, doesn't mean someone else is equally going to be ok with something she sees as something entirely different. The fact you'd see her as a hypocrite because of this doesn't bode well for a possible relationship between the two of you.

Honestly if a woman had herself done up for a night out and then claimed to have a serious issue with some of the stuff I do when flirting with women, which also happens to be some PUA techniques, without her being able to rationally explain why then I wouldn't want anything to do with her further. It would be a sign that she is indeed a hypocrite and most likely that she believes everything she reads in shock headlines.

Now, I'd only be going round in circles if I posted any more in this thread. You can take it or leave it as is, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm done here.

We are indeed and I honestly don't think I could face responding to such a long post again.

From reading some of the comments in your posts I'd gamble you have daughter or female relative who you're worried that is going to be sucked in by some evil guy using PUA techniques. You really need to give women the credit you give to men, about being able to see through things that are truly deceitful.

There are extremes in PUA (most of the sources you listed) which I too disagree with and at times would be repulsed by but to umbrella everyone who uses PUA to be like these people is inaccurate and totally misleading.

TheBeardedLady

Oh deadly. This thread again. KILL IIIIIIITTTTT!!

PopePalpatine

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Oh deadly. This thread again. KILL IIIIIIITTTTT!!

Ermahgerd, misandrist censorship! You obviously don't know how Real Swindler Dynamics has helped me, m'lady.

DoYouEvenLift

Bad news for anyone looking to lie about being rich in new jersey lol

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/rape_by_fraud_nj_lawmaker_introduces_bill_to_make_it_a_crime.html

worded

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

He needs to learn the gowly technique. Offer them tea at 3 in the morning. No girl will ever turn down tea at that time.

Has to be Barry's though

Laura Palmer

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Bad news for anyone looking to lie about being rich in new jersey lol

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/rape_by_fraud_nj_lawmaker_introduces_bill_to_make_it_a_crime.html

Ah jeez, even if they were lied to, they still consented.
That's a bit mad Ted.