Julien Blanc gets destroyed in CNN interview

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

You go to a bar at night and every part of a woman's appearance could be fake, make up, fake tan, massive wedged heels, push up bra, dress using angles to mask their shape etc etc. That's straight up visually manipulating men by women and it's a massive industry. Just because one's visual and the other verbal it doesn't make too much difference (again I'm going to get ahead of the responses by stating I'm not talking about the extremes of PUA).

Unless you're blind you can see make up and heels, you know they're enhancements. A guy who dresses well or wears contacts or goes for styles that make his build look better is obviously enhancing how he looks too. There is no manipulation there, no mind game. If you see a girl in false eyelashes, you know they come off. A girl in high heels is obviously going to be shorter when they come off, nobody is being deceived by the blatantly obvious.

Men aren't stupid, they know this stuff, pretending they're manipulated by mascara and fake tan is selling them short.

Foxtrol

Birneybau wrote: »

Make up makes a woman feel better about herself, pua techniques make her feel worse...Targeted lowering of anyones self-esteem is abhorrent.

Why is it only the women's feelings that matter? There are many people out there that say PUA techniques have made them feel more confident and better about themselves and they dont involve any of what you're claiming. How is it ok for you to tarnish them all with the same brush?

I'm in no way an expert on PUA (out of interest I only watched a few videos on youtube) but from what I've seen this whole 'making her feel worse' is such a red-herring, generally thrown out by people who have no clue about it.

Have you done any actual research on PUA techniques at all before you call it abhorrent or are you just throwing out statements?

Foxtrol

Candie wrote: »

Unless you're blind you can see make up and heels, you know they're enhancements. A guy who dresses well or wears contacts or goes for styles that make his build look better is obviously enhancing how he looks too. There is no manipulation there, no mind game. If you see a girl in false eyelashes, you know they come off. A girl in high heels is obviously going to be shorter when they come off, nobody is being deceived by the blatantly obvious.

Men aren't stupid, they know this stuff, pretending they're manipulated by mascara and fake tan is selling them short.

If men are being so abhorrent to women like it's being claimed, are you saying that these women are stupid enough that they can't see that this guy is manipulating them?

Laura Palmer

Haha, women wearing make-up which makes them look better = deceiving.

mikemac1 wrote: »

Cruise doesn't write the script, he just says the lines. If he does it well then now you know why he's so highly paid

What has scientology got to do with a film?

The poster I quoted compared PUA with scientology - that reminded me of Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia. I should have been clearer - I was surmising that he might have drawn on some of his scientology indoctrination techniques for his role in Magnolia.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

If men are being so abhorrent to women like it's being claimed, are you saying that these women are stupid enough that they can't see that this guy is manipulating them?

I thought the whole point of learning PUA stuff was so that you can manipulate women into interacting with you to one extent or another, without them knowing you're doing it? Y'know, they're supposed to think you're just a great guy all round and not cop on that you're working to a script or crib sheet of behaviours?

I do think it works better on very young, or very gullible (or drunk) women. I've seen it in action, it was quite unpleasant.

DoYouEvenLift

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Haha, women wearing make-up which makes them look better = deceiving.

The poster I quoted compared PUA with scientology - that reminded me of Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia. I should have been clearer - I was surmising that he might have drawn on some of his scientology indoctrination techniques for his role in Magnolia.

You wouldn't agree that this is deceiving?

DoYouEvenLift

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Youl wouldn't agree that this is deceiving?

Are you claiming you can't see she's wearing makeup?

Foxtrol

wexie wrote: »

No it's not, it's good advertising.

It's no different than buying a large bag of crisps only to come home and realise it's only half full....

Well....kinda....

Anyways, it's not manipulating

And that's exactly what PUA techniques are, it's the guy advertising himself as if he's got an interesting personality, that the woman would be interested in, when in reality he's actually just following something that's pre-prepared.

I don't get how people make such a difference between visually misleading someone and doing it verbally.

DoYouEvenLift

Candie wrote: »

Are you claiming you can't see she's wearing makeup?

So should we just assume every woman that wears makeup looks like that in reality?

Foxtrol

Candie wrote: »

I thought the whole point of learning PUA stuff was so that you can manipulate women into interacting with you to one extent or another, without them knowing you're doing it? Y'know, they're supposed to think you're just a great guy all round and not cop on that you're working to a script or crib sheet of behaviours?

I do think it works better on very young, or very gullible (or drunk) women. I've seen it in action, it was quite unpleasant.

So you're saying women go out of their way to buy the make-up, fake tan, fake eye-lashes, push-up bras that make it obvious that they're wearing these things?

I don't know much about that sort of thing but from I've gathered from different girlfriends the more expensive the product the more 'real' it looks. That's the aim!

Laura Palmer

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Youl wouldn't agree that this is deceiving?

I wouldn't agree that every woman who wears make-up trowels on that much.

I also think women who have quite a bit of acne will want to cover it up to look and feel more attractive, and in fairness, a guy is probably going to be more interested in her based on the second look rather than the bare-faced look (not that she looks hideous, but I can understand someone feeling self conscious about acne). Ok, if things go further, he will likely see how she looks without make-up (although I know of women who do their best not to let their man see them without make-up ever - e.g. getting up before he wakes and applying it!) but "deceit" implies malice, conniving. It's not like that.
If it were more acceptable for guys to wear foundation outside of theatre/film/TV/music/drag, I'm sure they'd wear it too - and I wouldn't blame them.

Foxtrol

Laura Palmer wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that every woman who wears make-up trowels on that much.

I also think women who have quite a bit of acne will want to cover it up to look and feel more attractive, and in fairness, a guy is probably going to be more interested in her based on the second look rather than the bare-faced look (not that she looks hideous, but I can understand someone feeling self conscious about acne). Ok, if things go further, he will likely see how she looks without make-up (although I know of women who do their best not to let their man see them without make-up ever - e.g. getting up before he wakes and applying it!) but "deceit" implies malice, conniving. It's not like that.
If it were more acceptable for guys to wear foundation outside of theatre/film/TV/music/drag, I'm sure they'd wear it too - and I wouldn't blame them.

And the woman would likely see these guy's personalities and run the other way if they aren't interested. This gives these guys who may not be the best looking or lacking in confidence a chance, which you're saying is alright for these women with acne.

DoYouEvenLift

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

So should we just assume every woman that wears makeup looks like that in reality?

Yes. That is exactly what I said.

If you can see make up, you can assume she's enhancing her looks. You can't assume she's doing so to pull the wool over an unsuspecting mans eyes.

Women wear makeup for lots of reasons, not all of them motivated by a deceitful desire to mislead men, surprisingly. Men are not stupid enough to imagine heavily made up women look exactly the same without make up.

Making the most of your looks isn't a mind game. PUA is.

Laura Palmer

By the way, confidence tips for guys who find it hard to get together with women, are a good thing.
The likes of "negging" though is where it starts to become problematic IMO.

DoYouEvenLift

Laura Palmer wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that every woman who wears make-up trowels on that much.

I also think women who have quite a bit of acne will want to cover it up to look and feel more attractive, and in fairness, a guy is probably going to be more interested in her based on the second look rather than the bare-faced look (not that she looks hideous, but I can understand someone feeling self conscious about acne). Ok, if things go further, he will likely see how she looks without make-up (although I know of women who do their best not to let their man see them without make-up ever - e.g. getting up before he wakes and applying it!) but "deceit" implies malice, conniving. It's not like that.
If it were more acceptable for guys to wear foundation outside of theatre/film/TV/music/drag, I'm sure they'd wear it too - and I wouldn't blame them.

It was an extreme example, but you do agree it is deceiving?

And usually people only get acne during their teens so if a girl gets acne and refrains from concealing it and just deals with it wouldn't she be better off in the long run and be able to wear less make up in the future? Surely makeup has adverse effects on acne breakouts which would result in spreading and then more concealing then more spreading and so on until you depend on makeup to the point that there are women who won't leave the house without their "face on"? Facing the insecurity of having acne and working to cure it would be much better because then when they're older they won't need to wear much makeup and can go for the natural look, which I'd say most men would agree is more attractive (maybe I'm wrong, other guys ITT can agree or disagree)

Laura Palmer

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

It was an extreme example, but you do agree it is deceiving?

And usually people only get acne during their teens so if a girl gets acne and refrains from concealing it and just deals with it wouldn't she be better off in the long run and be able to wear less make up in the future? Surely makeup has adverse effects on acne breakouts which would result in spreading and then more concealing then more spreading and so on until you depend on makeup to the point that there are women who won't leave the house without their "face on"? Facing the insecurity of having acne and working to cure it would be much better because then when they're older they won't need to wear much makeup and can go for the natural look, which I'd say most men would agree is most attractive

As I said, "deceiving" implies awful bad intentions - it's not done with malice.
I guess it is deceptive, although a guy would surely know she's wearing heavy make-up?

DoYouEvenLift

Laura Palmer wrote: »

As I said, "deceiving" implies awful bad intentions - it's not done with malice.
I guess it is deceptive, although a guy would surely know she's wearing heavy make-up?

Not necessarily, deceiving can also be for simple personal gain, like a girl putting on so much makeup she looks way more attractive than she really is in order to attract guys who otherwise wouldn't even look at her twice. Would be similar to a man stuffing his pants to deceive women into thinking he has a bigger penis, only for the truth to come out eventually lol, although this would be more easily compared to push up bras & tight dresses/corsets.

Foxtrol

Candie wrote: »

Yes. That is exactly what I said.

If you can see make up, you can assume she's enhancing her looks. You can't assume she's doing so to pull the wool over an unsuspecting mans eyes.

Women wear makeup for lots of reasons, not all of them motivated by a deceitful desire to mislead men, surprisingly. Men are not stupid enough to imagine heavily made up women look exactly the same without make up.

Once again you're expecting men to see through all this expense women go through to dress up on a night out while giving zero credit to women for their ability to see through a guy's PUA technique.

Making the most of your looks isn't a mind game. PUA is.

So you're saying making your appearance seem more attractive than it is isn't a mind game but making your personality seem more attractive than it is? Can you please explain the actual difference as every time you've posted one I've easily been able to make to counter how verbal and visual is similar?

Laura Palmer

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Not necessarily, deceiving can also be for simple personal gain, like a girl putting on so much makeup she looks way more attractive than she really is in order to attract guys who otherwise wouldn't even look at her twice. Would be similar to a man stuffing his pants to deceive women into thinking he has a bigger penis, only for the truth to come out eventually lol, although this would be more easily compared to push up bras & tight dresses/corsets.

You can't blame someone for doing something that will make their appearance more attractive to the opposite sex - anyone would do it. With that in mind, I wouldn't blame guys for opting for PUA to make them more attractive to the opposite sex - some of which seems quite benign (just standard confidence tips, which don't even need to be placed under the "PUA" umbrella) but some of which is quite negative.

Diabhal Beag

He didn't get destroyed. He was still in a human form at the end of the video. What a liar that OP is. Not even spontaneous human combustion FFS.

Minjor

Birneybau wrote: »

Make up makes a woman feel better about herself, pua techniques make her feel worse...Targeted lowering of anyones self-esteem is abhorrent.

When you say PUA techniques, what are you referring to exactly? You can't broadly use PUA as a term and claim everything espoused by the dozens of websites and books out there is designed to lower female self esteem.

Foxtrol

Laura Palmer wrote: »

You can't blame someone for doing something that will make their appearance more attractive to the opposite sex - anyone would do it. With that in mind, I wouldn't blame guys for opting for PUA to make them more attractive to the opposite sex - some of which seems quite benign (just standard confidence tips, which don't even need to be placed under the "PUA" umbrella) but some of which is quite negative.

Why do they not need to be placed under the PUA umbrella? The vast majority of PUA stuff is benign but that doesn't fit the narrative that some try repeatedly to push and/or believe without any research themselves.

From what I've read about Julien Blanc's 'techniques' are to most guys using PUA techniques as a girl getting ass implants is to one putting on a bit of makeup on for night out. They are on the absolute extremes of both spectrums. It is however his sort of stuff which is a lot easier to push the 'how dare they' agenda!

TheBeardedLady

Once again you're expecting men to see through all this expense women go through to dress up on a night out while giving zero credit to women for their ability to see through a guy's PUA technique.

Genuine question: would most women be able to see through it? Surely it's counterproductive then?

caustic 1

I think an eejit trying to get more recognition for his business tried shock tactics and succeeded.

Potatoeman

wexie wrote: »

I have to admit that I'm somewhat confused. I've a bit of experience in my younger years (admittedly some time ago) with getting into a few panties here and there (perhaps more than a few) and in my experience the key was ALWAYS and WITHOUT exception in making a woman/girl feel good about herself.

A friend of mine from college got into the PUA scene and this was what he was thought along with handling rejection. He had no luck in college at all. One thing he did say was that most people told him to be himself and it didnt get him anywhere. The ego boosting done the trick though. I dont see the problem with most of it as most people try to project a different persona to some degree. It just seems like too much work for me though.

Grayson

Candie wrote: »

Yes. That is exactly what I said.

If you can see make up, you can assume she's enhancing her looks. You can't assume she's doing so to pull the wool over an unsuspecting mans eyes.

Women wear makeup for lots of reasons, not all of them motivated by a deceitful desire to mislead men, surprisingly. Men are not stupid enough to imagine heavily made up women look exactly the same without make up.

Making the most of your looks isn't a mind game. PUA is.

have you actually read anything about PUA except stuff in jezebel?

PUA isn't about putting women down. There's one aspect of it that's mentioned in the game (Negging), but if you'd even read that book you'd know that most of the guys into PUA don't do it. Even in that book when the author mentions it, he dismisses it and says it should only be used as a form of slagging off. Which let's face it, happens in a flirtation. Guys and girls slag each other is a very friendly way. I guarantee that a woman doesn't want a guy who agrees with everything she says/does and only ever compliments her.

The idea of PUA is that if a girl is having fun with a guy, she'll fancy him. PUA is about how to be a fun guy. And it's there to help guys who don't know how to be a fun person.
Think of it this way, if a really nice but awkward guy asked a woman how to chat up a woman, they would probably say something along the lines of "Be yourself". If they saw him approach a girl and stumble through the most awkward conversation they've ever seen, they would probably say "be a bit more confident" or "Try to be a bit less serious". At that point, you have to admit, they are not saying "be yourself". What they actually mean is "be a better presented version of yourself".

Different sites and "Gurus" show different ways of doing it. Slating the whole field because of one thing you heard about on jezebel or even boards is like me slating the entirety of feminism because Germaine Greer once stated that men are inherently evil and a woman should be a lesbian.

Candie wrote: »

I love the escapism of a glossy fashion or interiors magazine, and I'm being absolutely honest when I say I've never seen cover lines like those. They're more likely to be 'Drop a Dress Size by Xmas' or 'Are Office Flirtations Worth it?'. Maybe teen mags are different, I don't know.

There's loads of articles like that. Men probably notice them more because when we're stuck in a dentists/doctors we're stuck with those magazines. And articles about sex/relationships are far more interesting than articles about clothing. I will say though that 99% of the content of womens magazines is drivel. (Not that FHM, maxim etc is better)

by the way a search for "5 ways to make him yours" brings up results from cosmo and glamour. A related search was "how to make him yours in 30 days" and the results for that are even worse. (Although that was made into a film with Kate Hudsen wasn't it? I didn't see many protests when it came out)

Foxtrol

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Genuine question: would most women be able to see through it? Surely it's counterproductive then?

Like guys noticing make-up, depending on how good you're at it some women will see through PUA techniques while others won't. I agree when a woman sees through it there's a high likelihood that it would be counterproductive, just like a girl who's caked in make-up.

Yarf Yarf

Links234 wrote: »

He could just be some maniac with cable ties and duct tape in his car boot.

I still think that It's Always Sunny really hit the mark with this kind of thing with the character of Dennis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ1lc6KASWg

I was describing this guy to a friend and the first thing she said was "he's like a real-life Dennis!" It's really the most accurate way to describe him.

TheBeardedLady

Foxtrol wrote: »

Like guys noticing make-up, depending on how good you're at it some women will see through PUA techniques while others won't. I agree when a woman sees through it there's a high likelihood that it would be counterproductive, just like a girl who's caked in make-up.

I don't think you get make up: women aren't trying to look like they're not wearing make up, they're trying to excentuate features and make it look like it's put on well and that it's professional-looking and not clownish-looking. Lipstick, no matter much you spend on it or how well it's put on, won't look natural (although the more expensive one might look better). Eyeliner will never look natural (nobody has a dark, black line naturally over their eyelid). Mascara will never look natural (people's eyelashes don't look like that naturally). Eyeshadow will never look natural (nobody has blue eyelids, for example). Foundation, even a thin layer, will still be visible - women's skin is not poreless.

When women cake it on, they don't do it because they don't know how to put it on properly (although sometimes they can't) or because they bought cheap make up (I doubt Katy Perry uses Rimmel) or by accident or because they believed they've done a good job making it look natural and no one will notice, they do it because they like the made up look and they feel good with it on and many men like it too, believe it or not. Today I'm wearing a bit of mascara but I have naturally blonde hair and my mascara is black, so it's obvious this is not the colour of my eyelashes. Their texture and shape is different too. I've very little on but it's obvious I'm wearing it. I'm not trying to make people believe I have long, black eyelashes and blonde hair naturally, I just want to have eyelashes that are visible.

Although many men might not know the extremes the woman has gone to to look the way she does, I don't believe there's any deception there as you can see it, no matter how little (you'll obviously have to look a little closer in that case). And I'd also wager that on a night out, 95% of women in bars and clubs are wearing it and I'm sure most men know that.

Anyway, bit of a tangent there. I wouldn't agree make up is a good comparison. Perhaps those chicken fillets or Wonderbras would be.

But tbh, I'm not against the more harmless forms of PUA tbh although I don't know much about it. I can see there's perhaps a need for something like it and telling a shy fella to be confident and to be himself is useless and lads are still expected to do most of the approaching.

However, I don't think it's any good for someone trying to find a relationship. Like the woman who gets up before her boyfriend every morning because she's afraid he'll see her without her slap (even though it's obvious she's wearing it), you can't sustain the tricks throughout a relationship. You're not being 100% yourself and that'd be exhausting. If a one night stand is all your looking for, perhaps it's effective but anything deeper and more long-term, I think getting to the root of the guy's fear or issue is what is needed. I have no clue how to do that but the fact that these techniques are gaining popularity must indicate something is going on. And I know I wouldn't be very impressed if I found out tricks were used on me 3 weeks into a relationship that were learned off some fella on Youtube. Being honest, it'd be a turn-off for me.

Foxtrol

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

I don't think you get make up: women aren't trying to look like they're not wearing make up, they're trying to excentuate features and make it look like it's put on well and that it's professional-looking and not clownish-looking. Lipstick, no matter much you spend on it or how well it's put on, won't look natural (although the more expensive one might look better). Eyeliner will never look natural (nobody has a dark, black line naturally over their eyelid). Mascara will never look natural (people's eyelashes don't look like that naturally). Eyeshadow will never look natural (nobody has blue eyelids, for example). Foundation, even a thin layer, will still be visible - women's skin is not poreless.

When women cake it on, they don't do it because they don't know how to put it on properly (although sometimes they can't) or because they bought cheap make up (I doubt Katy Perry uses Rimmel) or by accident or because they believed they've done a good job making it look natural and no one will notice, they do it because they like the made up look and they feel good with it on and many men like it too, believe it or not. Today I'm wearing a bit of mascara but I have naturally blonde hair and my mascara is black, so it's obvious this is not the colour of my eyelashes. Their texture and shape is different too. I've very little on but it's obvious I'm wearing it.

Although many men might not know the extremes the woman has gone to to look the way she does, I don't believe there's any deception there as you can see it, no matter how little (you'll obviously have to look a little closer in that case). And I'd also wager that on a night out, 95% of women in bars and clubs are wearing it and I'm sure most men know that.

Anyway, bit of a tangent there. I wouldn't agree make up is a good comparison.

To turn what you said around, men are trying to extenuate their personalities through PUA techniques, not come across like complete sleazes. They're trying to do it subtly but some fail and would be caught out. I'd say 95% of men on a night out are putting forward the best version of their personality, not being totally themselves, and I'm sure most women know that. Whether they're using PUA techniques so just hiding a side of themselves it's the same as women using different techniques to put on their best appearance.

You cant say it's a bad comparison until someone can point out a flaw in it, apart from one being verbal while the other visual.

But tbh, I'm not against the more harmless forms of PUA tbh although I don't know much about it. I can see there's perhaps a need for something like it and telling a shy fella to be confident and to be himself is useless and lads are still expected to do most of the approaching.

However, I don't think it's any good for someone trying to find a relationship. Like the woman who gets up before her boyfriend every morning because she's afraid he'll see her without her slap (even though it's obvious she's wearing it), you can't sustain the tricks throughout a relationship. You're not being 100% yourself and that'd be exhausting. If a one night stand is all your looking for, perhaps it's effective but anything deeper and more long-term, I think getting to the root of the guy's fear or issue is what is needed. I have no clue how to do that but the fact that these techniques are gaining popularity must indicate something is going on. And I know I wouldn't be very impressed if I found out tricks were used on me 3 weeks into a relationship that were learned off some fella on Youtube. Being honest, it'd be a turn-off for me.

A man finding out that a woman has been using techniques for 3 weeks to make herself seem drastically more attractive than she actually is would cause the exact same turn off though. Neither artificially improving your appearance or personality is going to work long term for a relationship, as I agree tricks dont work.

The problem here is that posters like you are using terms that attach a stigma to PUA techniques like guys having 'issues' but if I said that women who wear make-up have similar personality problems and that they need to get to the 'root of their fear' of showing their appearance naturally then I'd get torrents of abuse from female posters. Posters seem to believe it's ok to attach any terms they want to guys who use PUA techniques which only perpetuates the cycle of fear mongering.

Potatoeman

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

And I know I wouldn't be very impressed if I found out tricks were used on me 3 weeks into a relationship that were learned off some fella on Youtube. Being honest, it'd be a turn-off for me.

I would hope you would reflect on your own choices if you were tricked by youtube techniques. I find it weird that people are annoyed that people do this. Its like sales techniques. You need to be aware of how easily you can be manipulated.

TheBeardedLady

To turn what you said around, men are trying to extenuate their personalities through PUA techniques, not come across like complete sleazes. They're trying to do it subtly but some fail and would be caught out. I'd say 95% of men on a night out are putting forward the best version of their personality, not being totally themselves, and I'm sure most women know that. Whether they're using PUA techniques so just hiding a side of themselves it's the same as women using different techniques to put on their best appearance.

Sure! As I said, I'm not against it completely. Tricks to get chatting to a woman without insulting her seem harmless enough.

You cant say it's a bad comparison until someone can point out a flaw in it, apart from one being verbal while the other visual.

Make up= visible in ALL cases. PUA techniques= not obvious.

As I said, perhaps chicken fillets are a better comparison.

A man finding out that a woman has been using techniques for 3 weeks to make herself seem drastically more attractive than she actually is would cause the exact same turn off though. Neither artificially improving your appearance or personality is going to work long term for a relationship, as I agree tricks dont work.

Never said that wouldn't be a turn off either. If I was a man, I wouldn't be attracted to a woman who could never take her make up off.

The problem here is that posters like you are using terms that attach a stigma to PUA techniques like guys having 'issues' but if I said that women who wear make-up have similar personality problems and that they need to get to the 'root of their fear' of showing their appearance naturally then I'd get torrents of abuse from female posters. Posters seem to believe it's ok to attach any terms they want to guys who use PUA techniques which only perpetuates the cycle of fear mongering.

You're getting very defensive. I'm not attacking you. The issue I'm talking about here is men who feel afraid to approach women out of shyness (for example), not any kind of personality disorder or anything. There seems to be a lot more men nowadays (or at least on Boards) with this issue and I wondered why.

If a woman could never take her make up off, even at home in her house with her boyfriend, then she has a problem/issue too. Young women wear a lot more make up day-to-day then my day and I wonder why that is as well (another thread topic perhaps).

I'm simply saying that PUA techniques are not sustainable in a relationship and either is covering your face from your boyfriend every waking hour. You can't pretend forever. Another solution is needed just as another solution is needed for the woman who was too afraid to show her face to her long-term partner.

Foxtrol

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Sure! As I said, I'm not against it completely. Tricks to get chatting to a woman without insulting her seem harmless enough.

So you're good with practically all of PUA techniques then.

Make up= visible in ALL cases. PUA techniques= not obvious.

As I said, perhaps chicken fillets are a better comparison.

We can agree to disagree here, to women maybe it's always obvious but I for one can't tell a lot of the time whether a woman is wearing certain types of make up (especially in a dark bar/club).

My original point included push up bras, implants, certain outfits anyway as my premise was that anything misleading someone about their true appearance was comparable to someone using PUA techniques to mislead about their personality. Obviously there's different extremes for both.

Never said that wouldn't be a turn off either. If I was a man, I wouldn't be attracted to a woman who could never take her make up off.

We're agreed then.

You're getting very defensive. I'm not attacking you. The issue I'm talking about here is men who feel afraid to approach women out of shyness (for example), not any kind of personality disorder or anything. There seems to be a lot more men nowadays (or at least on Boards) with this issue and I wondered why.

If a woman could never take her make up off, even at home in her house with her boyfriend, then she has a problem/issue too. Young women wear a lot more make up day-to-day then my day and I wonder why that is as well (another thread topic perhaps).

I might appear to be defensive because I've had to respond to several posts that from different people who have been pretty insulting towards all guys who use those techniques, regularly equating them to having a personality issue (which seems to be generally accepted as an ok way to post on this topic but would be seen as offensive if it was said about others). Sometimes it's difficult to re-read all the individual posters previous posts to see where that particular person is coming from outside of the one I'm responding to.

I'm simply saying that PUA techniques are not sustainable in a relationship and either is covering your face from your boyfriend every waking hour. You can't pretend forever. Another solution is needed just as another solution is needed for the woman who was too afraid to show her face to her long-term partner.

Agreed again. However as I said before I rarely see such general catch all terms bandied about about 'women who alter their appearance' as I do when it comes to 'men who use PUA techniques'. When people are talking about the former they are very specific about who they think they have a problem whereas for PUA its generally everyone who does it.

TheBeardedLady

Foxtrol wrote: »

Agreed again. However as I said before I rarely see such general catch all terms bandied about about 'women who alter their appearance' as I do when it comes to 'men who use PUA techniques'. When people are talking about the former they are very specific about who they think they have a problem whereas for PUA its generally everyone who does it.

In fairness though Foxtrol, fellas like Julien Blanc and men of his ilk don't do it any favours. They've given it a terrible name. That's what people know about PUA (and plenty of men are critical of it too btw). The re-reg posters who've advocated it on Boards have had a very iffy views on women over the last few years too and coupled with the former, that's what's turned me off. Unlike make up or push up bras, PUA is still pretty niche, so people are suspicious of it. There seems to be thousands of techniques that fall under PUA whereas push up bras and chicken fillets are fairly straight-forward (they simply make your boobs look more pert/bigger than they really are). I don't have the time to read up on it but would you be willing to give me an example of a technique that would commonly be used (no Youtube videos)? One that you particularly like?

The Th!ng

I'm not sure who's worse - Blanc himself, or the losers who would go to his seminars. In my opinion attendees should have the word LOSER tattoed across their foreheads in inch high day-glo letters.

PopePalpatine

The Th!ng wrote: »

I'm not sure who's worse - Blanc himself, or the losers who would go to his seminars. In my opinion attendees should have the word LOSER tattoed across their foreheads in inch high day-glo letters.

To be fair to them, if they're looking to a "pick-up artist" for help they're desperate. If they try what Blanc does, then you can pick up the tattoo needle.

Foxtrol

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

In fairness though Foxtrol, fellas like Julien Blanc and men of his ilk don't do it any favours. They've given it a terrible name. That's what people know about PUA (and plenty of men are critical of it too btw). The re-reg posters who've advocated it on Boards have had a very iffy views on women over the last few years too and coupled with the former, that's what's turned me off. Unlike make up or push up bras, PUA is still pretty niche, so people are suspicious of it. There seems to be thousands of techniques that fall under PUA whereas push up bras and chicken fillets are fairly straight-forward (they simply make your boobs look more pert/bigger than they really are). I don't have the time to read up on it but would you be willing to give me an example of a technique that would commonly be used (no Youtube videos)? One that you particularly like?

There are thousands of different techniques women use to alter their appearance so it's far from straight forward (every part of the face and body from what I can tell can appear altered with a wide variety of techniques). When you look at it from a high level, like you're looking at push up bras, all these PUA techniques do is to make the guy more interesting.

Using this guy as an example as to what gives PUA a bad name is like saying women who get ass implants give a bad name to women who put on a bit of make up before heading out. They're the total extremes, one altering how they are appreciated visually while the other alters how they're appreciated verbally. Using statements like that are just an excuse not to do some research before blindly posting about it.

As I said previously in the thread, I personally don't use PUA techniques so I wouldn't be able to list technical terms or anything. Out of curiosity I watched some videos on youtube to see what it was all about before making judgement (something most people posting here I believe haven't done). I actually noticed some things I naturally did anyway (being playful (not aggressive negging or the likes), initiating contact, body language stuff, dealing with friends) but I've never gone through a full set/routine.

TheBeardedLady

There are thousands of different techniques women use to alter their appearance so it's far from straight forward (every part of the face and body from what I can tell can appear altered with a wide variety of techniques). When you look at it from a high level, like you're looking at push up bras, all these PUA techniques do is to make the guy more interesting.

There might be thousands of techniques but I can name 5 that most (perhaps not even most) Western women use: heels (visible), make up (visible), push up bra (not visible), hairstyle (visible), sexy clothes (visible). All very straight-forward (although not so straight-forward to wear).

Using this guy as an example as to what gives PUA a bad name is like saying women who get ass implants give a bad name to women who put on a bit of make up before heading out. They're the total extremes, one altering how they are appreciated visually while the other alters how they're appreciated verbally. Using statements like that are just an excuse not to do some research before blindly posting about it.

They do give PUA a bad name though. I'm stating a fact. Whether it's fair or justified or not is another story but that's the rep it has right now among many men AND women.

As I said previously in the thread, I personally don't use PUA techniques so I wouldn't be able to list technical terms or anything. Out of curiosity I watched some videos on youtube to see what it was all about before making judgement (something most people posting here I believe haven't done). I actually noticed some things I naturally did anyway (being playful (not aggressive negging or the likes), initiating contact, body language stuff, dealing with friends) but I've never gone through a full set/routine.

Cool. They sound like techniques used by human beings to flirt and can't really be claimed by PUA.

TheBeardedLady

Would it not be more beneficial to read up on psychological studies on what has actually been proven to work? There's loads of research on attraction and flirtation. What makes these PUA gurus experts on it? What are their qualifications?

Wibbs

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

What makes these PUA gurus experts on it? What are their qualifications?

Practical experience built over time and encounters? The thing is tBL, this stuff does work. However it works for a few reasons. It works as a numbers game. The more women these guys approach the more chances they have where they will find a woman it works on. It works on the selection biased audience. And if you take a man who has never just walked up and chatted with a woman, he's likely to see results. Basically in the case of such men it boils down to you can't catch fish with your net in the boat. To be fair I have noted more recently that many of these more honest PUA "guru" types will pretty much state/admit that. They give their ratios of approaches to results and it's actually quite a small proportion of said approaches. Given women like men aren't of one mind and there is a huge variability among individuals, it's not too surprising that this could work. It can also be very culturally biased too. A US of A nightclub is very different to an Irish nightclub culturally. Hell it's different to a US of A coffee shop. Again more recently some of these PUA types are majorly pushing the improve yourself mantra to men, which again, at least on the surface, is a good thing(tm). And again the honest ones will state that any given man has limit to the type of woman he can hope to get.

The problem comes even for the more honest PUA types where they get into the mindset and the selection biased appraisal of women as a hivemind entity rather than an individual. It can get ugly at that point. Where they see women as boxes(no pun) to be ticked(wrong verb) and "hamsters" to be understood and conquered.

Wibbs

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Would it not be more beneficial to read up on psychological studies on what has actually been proven to work? There's loads of research on attraction and flirtation.

On this point tBL, much of said research would back up a fair bit of what the PUA types are suggesting. The problem comes when the same PUA types carve it into a given, a product, for confused young men.

Foxtrol

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

There might be thousands of techniques but I can name 5 that most (perhaps not even most) Western women use: heels (visible), make up (visible), push up bra (not visible), hairstyle (visible), sexy clothes (visible). All very straight-forward (although not so straight-forward to wear).

You're using high level buckets to suit your argument while then doing the exact opposite of separating all different PUA techniques individually, rather than bucketing them. You could easily put PUA into high level buckets too but either way it's semantics that prove nothing.

They do give PUA a bad name though. I'm stating a fact. Whether it's fair or justified or not is another story but that's the rep it has right now among many men AND women.

I agree it's a fact and that's why I've been pointing out how uninformed and at times hypocritical that opinion is.

Cool. They sound like techniques used by human beings to flirt and can't really be claimed by PUA.

Why not? You're very pro pointing out subtle techniques that women use when talking about them altering their appearance. Again, you're using one set of rules for what you'd like to include in the discussion to suit your argument without any valid reason why others can't be included.

Foxtrol

Wibbs wrote: »

The problem comes even for the more honest PUA types where they get into the mindset and the selection biased appraisal of women as a hivemind entity rather than an individual. It can get ugly at that point. Where they see women as boxes(no pun) to be ticked(wrong verb) and "hamsters" to be understood and conquered.

Isn't this ugly point exactly what is happening here as far as posters judging all people involved in PUA techniques as a hivemind entity rather than an individual?

J Mysterio

Laura Palmer wrote: »

It is quite cultish. If you've ever seen the film Magnolia: scientology enthusiast one Thomas Cruise plays (very convincingly) the role of an extremely sinister PUA "guru" ("Respect the cock, tame the c*nt!") :eek:

StinkyMunkey

Hopefully this twat has a few daughters, then his perceptions of woman will change. Like to see him sit back and watch his techniques used on them. He has the kinda face were you have to fight the urge not to punch it.

TheBeardedLady

Wibbs wrote: »

On this point tBL, much of said research would back up a fair bit of what the PUA types are suggesting. The problem comes when the same PUA types carve it into a given, a product, for confused young men.

Yep and that was my point. They're not saying anything new but are passing it off as ground-breaking and charging many people for the privilege. I mean,

actually noticed some things I naturally did anyway (being playful (not aggressive negging or the likes), initiating contact, body language stuff, dealing with friends) but I've never gone through a full set/routine.

Eh....I've read that millions of times elsewhere from non PUA sources and like Foxtrol, I recognise it from my own interactions with men. I've read hundreds of articles on the above. I understand these fellas make it into consumable, easy-to-understand, "sexy" less academic form but they're taking people for fools making them believe they're letting them in on some secret when that info is already available.

TheBeardedLady

Why not? You're very pro pointing out subtle techniques that women use when talking about them altering their appearance. Again, you're using one set of rules for what you'd like to include in the discussion to suit your argument without any valid reason why others can't be included.

I don't understand your point here. What set of rules? Women have techniques to flirt and as do men but I have an issue with this particular technique (and I would have a problem with 18 year-olds getting boob jobs from their parents as graduation presents as is common in the States, for example - I see it as playing on young women's insecurities). My problem with this is that these PUA gurus are repackaging advice that is already available and making money off it. They're taking many men for chumps and I believe they target certain kinds of men (men who are not all that confident). Obviously you saw the videos for free on Youtube but many men don't stop there and pay for them and pay to go to their talks etc. These men aren't helping other men out of charity, many are making money off what they're doing. I think there's a fair bit of exploitation going on.

My other criticism, like I mentioned before, is that guys looking for relationships (NOT ONSs) believe PUA is the answer but I don't believe it's sustainable. Like make up, you can't cover yourself 24/7. My boyfriend sees me put my mascara on when we go out, I see him mess around with his hair and do various things to make it look like he's got more hair than he does but we see each other behind the scenes too - I know him completely. What do you do if you make a girl believe you're a fun, hilarious person but you like her and want to see her again? It's one thing taking off your cap to reveal your bald patch but it's another thing becoming a different person to what you were personality-wise.

I've used alcohol in the past for dutch courage and have been shy when meeting him with the guy again when sober, or at least not like I was able to (when I was younger). I wouldn't advice other people to go out and get ****-faced to meet the love of their life, would you? I see it as similar only you're lining some guru's pockets in the process.

Edit: I'm just as critical of the beauty industry as well, by the way.

TheBeardedLady

Foxtrol wrote: »

Isn't this ugly point exactly what is happening here as far as posters judging all people involved in PUA techniques as a hivemind entity rather than an individual?

Can't it be argued that the gurus are treating its customers as a hivemind by stating that their techniques will work for everyone?

TheBeardedLady

It's okay to be critical of stuff and acknowledge the negatives of something. Convincing yourself that it has no flaws is delusional.

tritium

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Yep and that was my point. They're not saying anything new but are passing it off as ground-breaking and charging many people for the privilege. I mean,


Eh....I've read that millions of times elsewhere from non PUA sources and like Foxtrol, I recognise it from my own interactions with men. I've read hundreds of articles on the above. I understand these fellas make it into consumable, easy-to-understand, "sexy" less academic form but they're taking people for fools making them believe they're letting them in on some secret when that info is already available.

Is that any different though than charging someone for a sales course or a programming course or any other skill? Its pretty common to package stuff up and resell it. From the little I know if it its generally acknowledged where those parts came from so the only thing that credit is being claimed for if the packaging and the claimed results. This isn't really very new and tbh like all of them it will have good and bad parts. If it helps with social abilities for people who lack them its a positive. If it goes down the manipulative cult route that's not.

For what its worth, people have been making money out if deceit in attraction for centuries. The idea of modifying or changing yourself both physically and personality wise is as old as the hills. Deportmen classes were once all the rage for women. Women's and men's mags discuss what the other gender want as a way to be successful with them. Really what puas do as a business model isn't particularly new.....