dating bootcamp

04-02-2015 1:45pm

Mike747 wrote: »

There's no point trying to argue with someone like him. He's a male feminist, a useful idiot who's swallowed the feminist narrative. All he can do is throw accusations of misogyny. Let him sit in his complacency and watch guys like RedJoker clean up with the women.

feminist: advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

guilty as charged. are you NOT a feminist?

Mike747 · 04-02-2015 1:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

feminist: advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

guilty as charged. are you NOT a feminist?

I am not and I don't believe feminism has anything to do with equality.

Wibbs · 04-02-2015 2:01pm

I'm not a "feminist" either. While I would be a strong advocate for social, political, legal, and economic rights for women, the third wave feminism movement itself is increasingly more and more divisive and ranting and daft with it. For a start it constantly pushes the mantra that women are always victims of external forces and men are the ones always working those external forces. I've known way too many strong, accomplished and together women in my life for that guff to fly with me.

Mike747 · 04-02-2015 2:03pm

Wibbs wrote: »

*facepalm* oh god. Useful idiot? Really? He/she/they(god I'm really confused now...) happen to have a different opinion on the subject to you. It's allowed like, encouraged even and it doesn't make them an idiot.

And let's dial back on the idiot stuff for a start. Not on. You can clearly make make your points well without resorting to pettiness so it's hardly required here.

Not for one second saying he's stupid. Male feminists are usually college educated.

Useful idiot: 'term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

04-02-2015 2:11pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm not a "feminist" either. While I would be a strong advocate for social, political, legal, and economic rights for women, the third wave feminism movement itself is increasingly more and more divisive and ranting and daft with it. For a start it constantly pushes the mantra that women are always victims of external forces and men are the ones always working those external forces. I've known way too many strong, accomplished and together women in my life for that guff to fly with me.

you can be a feminist and think that a lot of feminists are crackpots.

It's not something that defines me, but if somebody asked me "are you a feminist" the only sensible answer would be yes. most of the crazy stuff is not what people think of as feminism.

ancapailldorcha · 04-02-2015 2:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

you can be a feminist and think that a lot of feminists are crackpots.

It's not something that defines me, but if somebody asked me "are you a feminist" the only sensible answer would be yes. most of the crazy stuff is not what people think of as feminism.

Problem is, the crackpots are becoming the face of it. Look at the Guardian's website any given day for example.

Mike747 · 04-02-2015 2:16pm

Deleted User wrote: »

you can be a feminist and think that a lot of feminists are crackpots.

It's not something that defines me, but if somebody asked me "are you a feminist" the only sensible answer would be yes. most of the crazy stuff is not what people think of as feminism.

Here's one reason why I can't take feminism seriously. In Britain thousands of girls have been raped by 'Asian' gangs. Where was the feminist outrage? Contrast that with the anger over page 3 where women choose to pose topless and are financially compensated (a nice illustration of the feminist hatred of the working class).

Wibbs · 04-02-2015 2:17pm

Plus I don't wish to be associated with what too many of the crackpots represent and it's not just the minority voice either it's quite mainstream.

Annnnyway, lets' get back on topic folks(looks in mirror)

ancapailldorcha · 04-02-2015 2:18pm

Mike747 wrote: »

Here's one reason why I can't take feminism seriously. In Britain thousands of girls have been raped by 'Asian' gangs. Where was the feminist outrage? Contrast that with the anger over page 3 where women choose to pose topless and are financially compensated (a nice illustration of the feminist hatred of the working class).

It's not a class thing. Having a pop at the Asian gangs can lead to accusations of racism. Take Karen Matthews as an example. If she was non-white, she'd likely have been left alone.

Mike747 · 04-02-2015 2:22pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's not a class thing. Having a pop at the Asian gangs can lead to accusations of racism. Take Karen Matthews as an example. If she was non-white, she'd likely have been left alone.

The Page 3 fiasco is a class issue. The working class man buys The Sun, sees some nice tits on page 3 and then moves onto the sports section.

Meanwhile the middle class, who despise The Sun and its readers, visit art galleries full of naked women or watch art house movies full of nudity. Total hypocrisy.

ancapailldorcha · 04-02-2015 2:26pm

Mike747 wrote: »

The Page 3 fiasco is a class issue. The working class man buys The Sun, sees some nice tits on page 3 and then moves onto the sports section.

Meanwhile the middle class, who despise The Sun and its readers, visit art galleries full of naked women or watch art house movies full of nudity. Total hypocrisy.

You're more than welcome to start a separate thread but we need to get back on topic.

Seriously? · 04-02-2015 2:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

you can be a feminist and think that a lot of feminists are crackpots.

It's not something that defines me, but if somebody asked me "are you a feminist" the only sensible answer would be yes. most of the crazy stuff is not what people think of as feminism.

The problem is that people like you don't really direct feminism, the public face of feminism and the agenda pursued is set by said crackpots.

It’s like the 'Catholics' in this country who say they're pro same-sex marriage and use that as proof that Catholics aren't against it. But the thing is they have no ability to direct the official position of the church.

The same is true of the 'fluffy' feminists, they can say all the nice things they want but ultimately their opinion doesn't count since they really have no influence or ability to effect change.

RedJoker · 04-02-2015 3:16pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm still waiting for evidence for your beliefs.

Or are you the internet equivalent of that poor ditzy thing who told you not to fly into Rio?

I already pointed to the large gender bias in uses of spirituality and astrology and the large gender bias in the uptake of STEM subjects despite the heavy social pushing to reduce this.

There could of course be reasonable alternative explanations for those phenomenon (patriarchy isn't a reasonable explanation). They support my beliefs though. Anecdotal evidence, while potentially misleading is in fact a form of knowledge and I would always run beliefs through this filter before adopting them, I just wouldn't generalise from them.

For example, a lot of manosphere content about American women or women with tattoos and piercings doesn't line up with my personal experiences so I don't accept them. In the case of women with tattoos and piercings they do actually link to "peer reviewed scientific studies" on the subject which back up their beliefs. It's completely possible my anecdotal experiences are limited here but it would be a mistake to blindly accept the evidence of peer reviewed scientific studies. A reasonable alternative explanation is that it's just click bait. If I happen to see this bias in my personal experiences then it might be worth reevaluating. Likewise, people here have run my arguments through their anecdotal experiences as they should.

Scientific literature isn't able to analyze gender or race differences very much due to societal pressure. Science is heavily, heavily influenced by money and anything potentially politically incorrect would likely result in funding being cut. Scientists are human after all, they're not going to hurt their research funding. My point regarding the nutrition literature is that a lot of research money goes towards comparing whole grains to weaker substitutes so that the media, as Wibbs mentioned, can run misleading headlines. This is a common complaint of the more knowledgeable trainers and nutritionists. So much of the scientific literature in nutrition are observational studies which can't actually "prove" anything, you need several controlled studies to confidently draw any conclusions but that won't stop the media linking everything under the sun to cancer (they're right about the sun though).

For gender differences we're also talking about extremely complex processes with many competing variables so controlling for those variables would be almost impossible even if the funding was available and conclusions would be shaky at best. There have been some neurological studies into gender differences which reveal fascinating differences between the way men and women's brains work. I linked to an article on the topic earlier but here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=1&. A lot of the research that is coming out ends up backing up the teachings and beliefs of the manosphere and game, which were formed by the collective experiences of men. Martie Haselton has done a lot of research into this area as well.

Perhaps logical isn't the best word to describe what I mean. Analytical vs. emotional would probably be a better distinction. The analytical approach isn't always the most logical or rational, heuristics and biases exist for a reason after all. Defaulting to intuition and gut feeling can cause problems but defaulting to the analytical approach can as well. Would this distinction be less offensive to you?

RedJoker · 04-02-2015 4:23pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is easy to say but ultimately pointless IMO. I've been the one guy in a group of lads being forced to listen to all sorts of glory stories involving models and the like and it's crap. There is pressure there for guys which is why this is gaining steam. The other day a friend decided to tally up his "count" and I actually left. There is huge pressure on guys to be successful with women and if we aren't, we're looked at as odd by both genders.

I know what you mean, apologies if anything I've posted came across the same way btw. People have different goals in life and if it's not that big a deal to you then focus on the things you want instead. It actually feels like losing your virginity, before you lose it it's this huge deal and you feel all this peer pressure, afterwards it's like "was that it, what's the big deal?". Nice to have it handled but nobody else really cares. A lot of guys get big into business and other pursuits afterwards, a lot of the skillsets are very useful in other areas.

It can get worse once you get into the "community", it can feel like there's a lot of pressure. It's not necessarily a bad thing in that case because the guys there have that as a goal and it hopefully helps keep them motivated to improve. I haven't done a pure cold approach in over a month I'd say, I don't go to clubs that much and it's so miserable out that I'd rather get home and throw on football manager than talk to random girls.

On a related note, some of the stuff guys talk about used to be a huge turn off to me. I remember guys talking about going to coppers and the language they'd use would disgust me, it wasn't even that bad but I'd definitely get a physical reaction to it, I was very much a "nice guy" though. Never had anybody tally up his "count" before. A lot of the David Shade stuff helped with these beliefs, that women love the feeling of being desired and it actually being a turn on for them. The feeling of causing this desire in men. I didn't understand why women who were present tended to find the comments funny or a "guys will be guys" type thing but it makes more sense now.

Whatever your goal is I'd recommend going all in with it, moderate approaches rarely get results. I've been half-assing learning a new language and it shows. Any pursuit I've cultivated an obsession on always showed significant results.

ancapailldorcha · 04-02-2015 5:11pm

RedJoker wrote: »

I know what you mean, apologies if anything I've posted came across the same way btw. People have different goals in life and if it's not that big a deal to you then focus on the things you want instead. It actually feels like losing your virginity, before you lose it it's this huge deal and you feel all this peer pressure, afterwards it's like "was that it, what's the big deal?". Nice to have it handled but nobody else really cares. A lot of guys get big into business and other pursuits afterwards, a lot of the skillsets are very useful in other areas.

It can get worse once you get into the "community", it can feel like there's a lot of pressure. It's not necessarily a bad thing in that case because the guys there have that as a goal and it hopefully helps keep them motivated to improve. I haven't done a pure cold approach in over a month I'd say, I don't go to clubs that much and it's so miserable out that I'd rather get home and throw on football manager than talk to random girls.

On a related note, some of the stuff guys talk about used to be a huge turn off to me. I remember guys talking about going to coppers and the language they'd use would disgust me, it wasn't even that bad but I'd definitely get a physical reaction to it, I was very much a "nice guy" though. Never had anybody tally up his "count" before. A lot of the David Shade stuff helped with these beliefs, that women love the feeling of being desired and it actually being a turn on for them. The feeling of causing this desire in men. I didn't understand why women who were present tended to find the comments funny or a "guys will be guys" type thing but it makes more sense now.

Whatever your goal is I'd recommend going all in with it, moderate approaches rarely get results. I've been half-assing learning a new language and it shows. Any pursuit I've cultivated an obsession on always showed significant results.

I don't think you've said anything like that at all. The only thing that interests me is getting over approach anxiety and to develop the courage to approach women. I've no real interest in sitting in cafés and pubs "daygaming" or anything like that. I'm not overly fond of the sites and blogs either. There was a girl at my bus stop recently and it took me a few weeks before I said anything to her.

RedJoker · 04-02-2015 5:25pm

Wibbs wrote: »

IMH RJ it's got little enough to do with gender tendencies and more to do with gender expectations. In my case I was giving a male angle on things, yet because a fair number thought me female, they just thought it was a female angle. It was the same me, angle and opinion, but expectations were different depending on the reader. If anything my opinions and advice were very "male", very reductive and clinical, detached, indeed quite cold at times, but that didn't change the gender view some had of me.

The type of my general rantings meanderings I noticed that did raise eyebrows were when I called somebody out on what I perceived as BS. As a man that's more "allowed" and expected than it is coming from a woman. It wasn't often and it was subtle but it was there. It certainly made me more aware that women noting that being confident in a debate can sometimes be seen as being a "hard bitch" was a real thing.

Sure, but these gender expectations don't just create themselves, they're caused by real differences in behaviour that are picked up over time (often subconsciously). A woman adopting masculine behaviours or posting styles will be described as a masculine woman or "hard bitch". A man adopting feminine behaviours will be described as effeminate or even mistaken for a woman.

In the case where gender has been assumed (because of you being a mod of the ladies lounge) there's enough outliers in the population (or people exercising their capacity) that it's unlikely to reverse this opinion no matter how masculine your posting style. First impressions are very powerful as well and can be difficult to change.

RedJoker · 04-02-2015 6:11pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think you've said anything like that at all. The only thing that interests me is getting over approach anxiety and to develop the courage to approach women. I've no real interest in sitting in cafés and pubs "daygaming" or anything like that. I'm not overly fond of the sites and blogs either. There was a girl at my bus stop recently and it took me a few weeks before I said anything to her.

Ah cool. Approach anxiety is completely normal, it never goes away although it does dissipate with repeated exposure. It's a sign you're stepping outside your comfort zone and your body is trying to protect you. Some guys describe it turning into "approach excitement", they take that nervous energy and use it to help them in conversation.

A lot of the time we come up with excuses ("limiting beliefs") for why we shouldn't approach. "She's too hot for me", "She looks busy", "She's talking to her friend", "I don't know what to say", "it's weird to talk to strangers", etc., etc., etc.

Pay attention to the thoughts that go through your head when you're thinking of approaching and write them down. For example, the second approach I ever did was a girl in a huge group of guys when I was in Malta, I hadn't done a bootcamp at this stage and this girl was phenomenal. The thought that went through my head was "my friends aren't here so it doesn't matter if I get rejected". I approached, she loved it but her boyfriend happened to be in the group. My limiting belief at the time had to do with what my friends thought of me and I hadn't even known it. For you it could be something completely different.

Later you can "reframe" these beliefs into more positive ones. For example, "she's talking to her friend" could become "she's out in a pub, it's a social environment and it's not unusual to talk to other people. If not being interrupted was critical to them they'd be somewhere private". Yes, sometimes they haven't seen each other in ages and want to catch up over a drink, if that's the case they'll politely say so and likely be flattered by the approach.

"My friends might see me get rejected" could become "cool, it might be a funny story we can laugh about and they'll probably respect me for trying".

Do you remember what was going through your head at the time at the bus stop?

For some guys it turns from fear into apathy or into arrogance. They get over the fear and then get apathetic. Again, it's all excuses your mind is creating to protect you.

For "I don't know what to say" it might mean having something prepared (a "routine" (gasp)) to say until you can learn to improvise.

It's going to be different for different people. We all start at different levels with different strengths and weaknesses.

After reframing you then need to confirm these new beliefs and disprove the old ones. The bitchiest looking women you've ever seen can be the biggest sweethearts when you approach. I can't think of a better way to crush a "She doesn't look friendly" limiting belief then experiencing that for yourself.

For the actual approaching there are ways to babystep it. Go out for 30 days and ask one random stranger (male or female) for the time or directions to somewhere nearby. Doing 30 in one day won't help as much, you tend to get desensitized after the first couple and the fear will be back the next day.
Gradually work up to paying people compliments, paying attractive women compliments and leaving, later approaching and continuing the conversation afterwards.

That wasn't the approach I took but it works for some guys. Another approach is to just suck it up, take your balls in your hand, say **** it and jump in. This can be scary. If you have a friend or just want to hire the local PUA guy to push you into sets this can work. With friends you can make a game of it, give him €100 and tell him to give you back €20 each time you approach, etc.

This stuff can be very individual though, it really depends on your specific issues.

04-02-2015 6:21pm

RedJoker wrote: »

I already pointed to the large gender bias in uses of spirituality and astrology and the large gender bias in the uptake of STEM subjects despite the heavy social pushing to reduce this.

So, putting our rational brains to good use... the fact that women are under-represented in STEM tells us nothing about how they may or may not think. Literally nothing.

There are so many (well rehearsed) potential reasons why this might be the case that I hopefully don't have to go into them. Long-standing cultural prejudice is one obvious one. Others might include more women just not being interested in those subjects (which is very different to not being suited to them). There's loads.

So it is a huge, huge assumption to use lack of women in STEM as evidence of any lack of rational thought in women. In fact, let's be honest, it's not rational to make that assumption.

Fwiw, I don't really believe that there is active prejudice working against women in these fields. But you can be sure there is some unconscious judging going on - it's only natural. Great article here on that subject.

Similarly the astrology / psychics. Yes, some women use these services, presumably as an emotional crutch or as a way to add enjoyment to their day. Plenty of men do the same but with different more gender-appropriate activities. Most of what most people do all day is irrational when you think about it.

I really don't think it's a common difference between men and women (there are differences btw, I don't deny it).

Potatoeman · 04-02-2015 7:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

OK - so I am going to step in again here.

PUAs are filling that vacuum alright, and filling already vulnerable men's heads with ludicrous ideas of what 'success' means, about how they are a failure if they are not sleeping with dozens of beautiful women etc etc. It's not helpful full stop, it's downright dangerous for both men and women.

Much better advice, for everyone, would be to stop worrying about it. The idea that we need a 'nicer' PUA to help men who lack confidence, I just don't agree with that. I think a lot men lack confidence precisely because of the society we have created where there's so much pressure around this one thing. We would be better off not talking about it so much.

WRT to the gender war, sure. I agree. I am not a gender politics person anyway. And perhaps 'misogyny' is too strong, but misogynism sure starts with the kind of attitudes that RedJoker is displaying. First thing you've got to do is start thinking women are some sort of adorable pets that don't think straight. Then you are half way there.

That's not better advice it's non-existent advice.

If someone has to go to a bootcamp for this then its obviously an issue for them.

I think people have issues with the whole PUA thing as they see it as taking advantage of women but I don't believe you can trick people into sleeping with you. It's something someone will either do or not.

ancapailldorcha · 04-02-2015 8:00pm

RedJoker wrote: »

Ah cool. Approach anxiety is completely normal, it never goes away although it does dissipate with repeated exposure. It's a sign you're stepping outside your comfort zone and your body is trying to protect you. Some guys describe it turning into "approach excitement", they take that nervous energy and use it to help them in conversation.

A lot of the time we come up with excuses ("limiting beliefs") for why we shouldn't approach. "She's too hot for me", "She looks busy", "She's talking to her friend", "I don't know what to say", "it's weird to talk to strangers", etc., etc., etc.

Pay attention to the thoughts that go through your head when you're thinking of approaching and write them down. For example, the second approach I ever did was a girl in a huge group of guys when I was in Malta, I hadn't done a bootcamp at this stage and this girl was phenomenal. The thought that went through my head was "my friends aren't here so it doesn't matter if I get rejected". I approached, she loved it but her boyfriend happened to be in the group. My limiting belief at the time had to do with what my friends thought of me and I hadn't even known it. For you it could be something completely different.

Later you can "reframe" these beliefs into more positive ones. For example, "she's talking to her friend" could become "she's out in a pub, it's a social environment and it's not unusual to talk to other people. If not being interrupted was critical to them they'd be somewhere private". Yes, sometimes they haven't seen each other in ages and want to catch up over a drink, if that's the case they'll politely say so and likely be flattered by the approach.

"My friends might see me get rejected" could become "cool, it might be a funny story we can laugh about and they'll probably respect me for trying".

Do you remember what was going through your head at the time at the bus stop?

Makes sense...

I have a weird preference for tall, mixed race girls. Don't ask me why. It's not a common combination. Anyway, I saw her and couldn't believe it. I didn't say anything for a while until I was running late one day and asked her if my bus had gone. She looked at me and then looked away. I recognised her from a dating site and I'd messaged her about 6 months prior to this. I doubt she'd remember me from hundreds of guys.

To be honest, I was terrified that she'd think I was some sort of weird stalker. Otherwise, I'd have assumed she had a boyfriend and didn't want to create awkwardness.

RedJoker · 05-02-2015 12:51am

Deleted User wrote: »

So, putting our rational brains to good use... the fact that women are under-represented in STEM tells us nothing about how they may or may not think. Literally nothing.

There are so many (well rehearsed) potential reasons why this might be the case that I hopefully don't have to go into them. Long-standing cultural prejudice is one obvious one. Others might include more women just not being interested in those subjects (which is very different to not being suited to them). There's loads.

So it is a huge, huge assumption to use lack of women in STEM as evidence of any lack of rational thought in women. In fact, let's be honest, it's not rational to make that assumption.

Fwiw, I don't really believe that there is active prejudice working against women in these fields. But you can be sure there is some unconscious judging going on - it's only natural. Great article here on that subject.

Similarly the astrology / psychics. Yes, some women use these services, presumably as an emotional crutch or as a way to add enjoyment to their day. Plenty of men do the same but with different more gender-appropriate activities. Most of what most people do all day is irrational when you think about it.

I really don't think it's a common difference between men and women (there are differences btw, I don't deny it).

Cultural prejudices don't just get created for no reason, often it's a subconscious process. I agree that it can certainly exacerbate the effect. In the article you linked, the micro privilege of not having people explain things can be a negative as well, people taking additional time to help you isn't always a bad thing.

Yes, women just not being interested in those subjects would have been my assumption. I completely agree with you that it's a likely cause, probably the main cause imo. Not having an interest in analytical subjects might be indicative of not having a preference for analytical thought processes I would have thought? Similar to women showing a preference for covert communication vs. overt communication.

Even though the opening paragraph in the article wasn't true for him, it is true for a lot of programmers and childhood preferences (which are studied a bit more across genders) would make it more likely men become interested in the subject. Cultural prejudice probably adds to this again, parents would be more likely to encourage it in boys. As a completely arbitrary aside I've taught my daughter how to program before.

There are certainly a lot of similarities no doubt, the differences might be subtle but they can be hugely important. Couple of interesting books on this topic are:
You just don't understand, men and women in conversation by Deborah Tannen
The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine

If you don't deny that there are differences then surely you agree that some of those differences have positive and negative aspects. Unless all the differences result in positive traits for women and negative traits for men?

RedJoker · 05-02-2015 1:35am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Makes sense...

I have a weird preference for tall, mixed race girls. Don't ask me why. It's not a common combination. Anyway, I saw her and couldn't believe it. I didn't say anything for a while until I was running late one day and asked her if my bus had gone. She looked at me and then looked away. I recognised her from a dating site and I'd messaged her about 6 months prior to this. I doubt she'd remember me from hundreds of guys.

To be honest, I was terrified that she'd think I was some sort of weird stalker. Otherwise, I'd have assumed she had a boyfriend and didn't want to create awkwardness.

I'm completely with you on the mixed race thing, very nice.

As in, if you hadn't seen her on the dating site you'd assume she had a boyfriend? It would be a little unusual to assume she had a boyfriend if you'd seen her on a dating site but, at the same time, our brains can create some really illogical rationalisations to keep us in our comfort zone sometimes.

The weird stalker belief is probably context specific in this case so hopefully won't be a big issue in future. I've bailed on approaches before because I thought the girl had seen me or I'd waited too long and thought it would feel weird, those are context specific as well but happen a little more often. The truth is that it usually wouldn't matter, most of the time the girls haven't even noticed me walking past when I ask later, they're usually in their own world. It's all in my head. You're probably just a guy waiting for the bus to her, I doubt she's thinking weird stalker.

For the boyfriend thing it's never been a big deal if they have boyfriends. Sometimes you can get into great chats, ask for their number and they apologise profusely for having a boyfriend. A few times they'll say it at the beginning but be flattered by the compliment. "I'm sorry, I have a boyfriend but thank you so much, you made my day" isn't uncommon. I asked out a girl in work last week who was engaged, not a big deal at all. She showed me the ring and said she was engaged. I joked that "it sounds pretty serious so". She joked that "well he handed me a ring, what was I supposed to do". The girl in Malta had her boyfriend standing right next to her. He turned around after we'd been chatting for a minute or two. I introduced myself and shook hands, he leaned in and kissed her, I said "my bad, have a good night". It's only going to be awkward if you think it's awkward. Next step is to approach a couple of girls who end up having boyfriends and see for yourself that there's nothing awkward about it. Your brain can't hold that belief if you disprove it.

If there's something situational to start the conversation then it can be good to lead with that, asking if your bus had gone could certainly work. Don't keep talking about the bus though, transition into other topics. Unfortunately it's not always the case that there's something situational and you end up waiting a while. It's often easier to just say something like "Excuse me, I just noticed you and thought you looked really nice, I wanted to say hi". Put it in your own words, whatever made you want to talk to her, tell her that. Don't make it too long winded though, you'll lose the emotional punch. Make sure she's paying attention to you before giving the compliment. Conversation will be basically the same as the bus opener.

Pug160 · 05-02-2015 9:09pm

I've noticed The Guardian being mentioned a couple of times in this thread, and in other similar threads. I'm no expert on it by any means, but I have come across at least two or three sympathetic articles written by Guardian journalists about these types of topics.

ancapailldorcha · 06-02-2015 12:11am

Pug160 wrote: »

I've noticed The Guardian being mentioned a couple of times in this thread, and in other similar threads. I'm no expert on it by any means, but I have come across at least two or three sympathetic articles written by Guardian journalists about these types of topics.

Really?

I used to have a very high opinion of it as a scientist. They called out quacks and lawyered up when necessary instead of retracting. A lot of their opinion pieces are very good. However, a few of them (*cough*Jessica Valenti*cough*cough*) like to treat men as a homogeneous population before blaming them for all sorts of absurd things.

bajer101 · 06-02-2015 1:52am

I've skimmed through this thread and as a 46 year old man here's my twopence. After all the sowing of the oats, ultimately what we desire is someone to cuddle up on the sofa with and enjoy a movie and share our day. Picking up women for a shag is grand but is ultimately meaningless -it's just a glorified **** with a massaged ego. I call bullshít on the whole pua scene and multiple relationships. I've been there and done that and had threesomes and more wild sex than you could shake the proverbial stick at - but when it gets down to it, what we all really want is someone to love and for someone to love us. This thread has been devoid of that concept.

RedJoker · 06-02-2015 10:19am

bajer101 wrote: »

This thread has been devoid of that concept.

Fair point, it's an absolutely valid topic of discussion in this area. More a case of it not coming up rather than anything else. Plenty of other equally valid topics in the other direction such as spotting and dealing with personality disorders that we could have discussed but that didn't come up either. Thread was about dating bootcamps after all.

bajer101 wrote: »

After all the sowing of the oats, ultimately what we desire is someone to cuddle up on the sofa with and enjoy a movie and share our day.

The company I used have as a rule to never tell guys what their desires are. That's for them to decide. Sometimes it's clearly a case of limiting beliefs but that's something the student has to discover for themselves. I've said a couple of times in this thread that if improving with women isn't important to you then do what is important to you instead.

I've done the whole family life thing for 8 years in my late teens/early 20s (wasn't actually married though), weekend cuddled up on the coach watching a movie with a bottle of wine. It was great, I was happy. I said so at the start of the thread. It also has drawbacks, especially for a young man with endless options and opportunities to shape his life and not enough experience to really know what he wants yet.

It's not just men either, feminists are advising women to sleep around with players and assholes while they're young and to settle down with a nice guy in their 30s to start a family, if that's what they want.

bajer101 wrote: »

Picking up women for a shag is grand but is ultimately meaningless -it's just a glorified **** with a massaged ego.

What's wrong with ****?!? I'm sure you've had sex before where you'd actually just prefer to be doing it yourself. Likewise you can have amazing experiences that a million **** couldn't match even if they're only short term things. One of the best experiences I've ever had was with a girl I only slept with twice, I still have vivid memories of it and it wasn't a wild orgy or anything crazy, just normal sex. I've heard amazing stories from other guys which they can still describe in perfect detail. They must have been incredible experiences for both him and the girl even if it was just one time.

A lot of people advise not to spend money on material possessions and to use your money for experiences instead. Travel, dinner with friends, etc. vs. big house or expensive car. I'd personally agree with that and, even if bootcamps are expensive, they can open the door to amazing experiences for a lot of guys. A lot of guys spend money on flashy cars or expensive watches because they hope it'll improve their chances with women. If you genuinely appreciate fast cars or beautiful watches then spend your money on it, if it's to get women a bootcamp is an infinitely better investment.

If you're doing this for validation or to massage your ego it's definitely not healthy. I'd advise a guy in that situation to work on his underlying issues, sleeping with lots of women won't help. Despite sleeping with lots of women Mystery tried to kill himself when one girl rejected him, I'm in complete agreement with you that it's not the answer.

bajer101 wrote: »

I call bullshít on the whole pua scene and multiple relationships. I've been there and done that and had threesomes and more wild sex than you could shake the proverbial stick at - but when it gets down to it, what we all really want is someone to love and for someone to love us.

Love is great, no question. It's fine to want it but if you need it, if you think getting a woman to love you is some magical cure that's going to fix your underlying issues, then it's just as unhealthy as trying to seduce loads of women.

Whether you're trying to seduce lots of women or find one to fall in love with it's more a case of the underlying motivation. As has been mentioned before there's a sliding scale to motivation, it's not a binary thing. If part of the motivation is because of wanting to fit in with the guys or to feel a bit better about yourself then it's not necessarily an issue, work on making it less about your ego though.

It's also completely possible to love someone and have someone love you without being exclusive. Monogamy isn't a prerequisite for love. Conversely, just because you're in love doesn't mean you should be in a relationship or get married.

Wibbs · 06-02-2015 11:14am

RedJoker wrote: »

It's not just men either, feminists are advising women to sleep around with players and assholes while they're young and to settle down with a nice guy in their 30s to start a family, if that's what they want.

I'm no feminist, but IMHO that's an incredibly simplistic and again US red pill take on feminism and the sexual revolution and the like. "Cock carousel" and "Alpha fux/Beta bux" stuff prevalent within that culture.

A lot of people advise not to spend money on material possessions and to use your money for experiences instead. Travel, dinner with friends, etc. vs. big house or expensive car.

Oh I'd agree with that. The consumerist BS of the guy who dies with the most stuff wins is a crock. It's a crock that'd drives much of modern western society too. Ever chasing the next gimmick and gadget that makes you feel better about your place in society. Consumerism has hijacked the human need to fit in as a social animal in a big way. And makes it so you can never quite get there, never quite be "authentic" enough.

A lot of guys spend money on flashy cars or expensive watches because they hope it'll improve their chances with women.

Maybe your secondhand car dealer with the secondhand Porsche and the Rolex on tick(no pun), but that's more of a cliche. Sure women are part of that setup in men like that, but flash cars and the like are as much about being ahead in the competition with other men and transmitting social status and belonging. It's not unlike penis extension operations. They increase the visible size on the flop. It's more about locker room ego than sexual effectiveness.

Oh and speaking as someone infected with the watches virus

IME women don't notice them. At all. TAG Heuer and Rolex would be about the only brands with some recognition and if they're that close that they can read the dial, you're probably already in.

Though again that can be cultural too. I remember reading an article written by an English dude on dating in New York and one night he threw on a cheap watch and his date spotted it and game over. He experimented with this and found a section of your New Yorker sex and the city dollar sniffing types did notice and react differently whether he was wearing a Casio or a Lange. Women do notice shoes though. Or at least I've had far more comments on a pair of shoes/boots I was wearing than any watch I was.

I'd advise a guy in that situation to work on his underlying issues, sleeping with lots of women won't help.

+1.

if you think getting a woman to love you is some magical cure that's going to fix your underlying issues, then it's just as unhealthy as trying to seduce loads of women.

+ a gazillion. And it's a near sure fire way to eventually lose the object of that kind of love.

ancapailldorcha · 06-02-2015 11:25am

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm no feminist, but IMHO that's an incredibly simplistic and again US red pill take on feminism and the sexual revolution and the like. "Cock carousel" and "Alpha fux/Beta bux" stuff prevalent within that culture.

Oh I'd agree with that. The consumerist BS of the guy who dies with the most stuff wins is a crock. It's a crock that'd drives much of modern western society too. Ever chasing the next gimmick and gadget that makes you feel better about your place in society. Consumerism has hijacked the human need to fit in as a social animal in a big way. And makes it so you can never quite get there, never quite be "authentic" enough.

Maybe your secondhand car dealer with the secondhand Porsche and the Rolex on tick(no pun), but that's more of a cliche. Sure women are part of that setup in men like that, but flash cars and the like are as much about being ahead in the competition with other men and transmitting social status and belonging. It's not unlike penis extension operations. They increase the visible size on the flop. It's more about locker room ego than sexual effectiveness.

Oh and speaking as someone infected with the watches virus IME women don't notice them. At all. TAG Heuer and Rolex would be about the only brands with some recognition and if they're that close that they can read the dial, you're probably already in. Though again that can be cultural too. I remember reading an article written by an English dude on dating in New York and one night he threw on a cheap watch and his date spotted it and game over. He experimented with this and found a section of your New Yorker sex and the city dollar sniffing types did notice and react differently whether he was wearing a Casio or a Lange. Women do notice shoes though. Or at least I've had far more comments on a pair of shoes/boots I was wearing than any watch I was.

+1.

+ a gazillion. And it's a near sure fire way to eventually lose the object of that kind of love.

Spot on.

I'd actually forgotten you had that rarest of things, an appreciation for the fine craft of watchmaking. I was transfixed for about an hour in the British Museum's watch section.

RedJoker · 06-02-2015 12:34pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm no feminist, but IMHO that's an incredibly simplistic and again US red pill take on feminism and the sexual revolution and the like. "Cock carousel" and "Alpha fux/Beta bux" stuff prevalent within that culture.

I didn't mean it in a negative way. Taken from a manosphere angle it's certainly perceived as a negative though so I understand why you'd think that's what I was implying. Again, it's another common manosphere view (backed up with scientific research no less) that I don't personally fully accept.

I meant it as a positive. Feminists (and I was paraphrasing a feminist article although I've heard older female friends give the same advice to younger girls) are advising women to do the exact same thing. Even if their eventual goal is to settle down and have a family they're being advised to explore their sexuality. I think giving men the advice to do similar, even if our "ultimate desire" is to eventually be in a loving relationship (whether that happens to be true or not) is a good thing.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'd agree with that. The consumerist BS of the guy who dies with the most stuff wins is a crock. It's a crock that'd drives much of modern western society too. Ever chasing the next gimmick and gadget that makes you feel better about your place in society. Consumerism has hijacked the human need to fit in as a social animal in a big way. And makes it so you can never quite get there, never quite be "authentic" enough.

Maybe your secondhand car dealer with the secondhand Porsche and the Rolex on tick(no pun), but that's more of a cliche. Sure women are part of that setup in men like that, but flash cars and the like are as much about being ahead in the competition with other men and transmitting social status and belonging. It's not unlike penis extension operations. They increase the visible size on the flop. It's more about locker room ego than sexual effectiveness.

Oh and speaking as someone infected with the watches virus IME women don't notice them. At all. TAG Heuer and Rolex would be about the only brands with some recognition and if they're that close that they can read the dial, you're probably already in. Though again that can be cultural too. I remember reading an article written by an English dude on dating in New York and one night he threw on a cheap watch and his date spotted it and game over. He experimented with this and found a section of your New Yorker sex and the city dollar sniffing types did notice and react differently whether he was wearing a Casio or a Lange. Women do notice shoes though. Or at least I've had far more comments on a pair of shoes/boots I was wearing than any watch I was.

I agree with you, a lot of the marketing would attempt to persuade guys it'll make them more attractive to the opposite sex. As a lot of marketing does for women. My point, and it was completely tangential rambling now looking back at it, was that bootcamps were a better investment if that was the motivation.

Implying social status is a very common strategy for attracting women, with good reason. But it's like getting in shape (as the author of the article ACD linked discovered), helpful but not sufficient.

Completely with you on the watch thing. I bought a zenith a while back (captain elite palladium fume if you're curious), it's the most beautiful thing I've ever owned (took me ages and a large chunk of cash to get my hands on). I could spend hours just looking at the thing. I have never once had a woman comment on it, it might as well be invisible.

Funny story actually. I was going on about it to one of my girlfriends after I'd just bought it. She didn't understand the fascination at all.
H: You could go down to Moore Street and get a watch for €2.
M: Yep, and it would probably tell the time more accurately. I could also go down to Moore Street and pick up a woman as well, she'd have all the working parts but I prefer beautiful women.

Needless to say she didn't appreciate the analogy.

RedJoker · 06-02-2015 5:36pm

A guy on the lounge just told me a piece of advice I gave him got him laid 3 times more last month.

I love game.

strobe · 06-02-2015 7:59pm

RedJoker wrote: »

A guy on the lounge just told me a piece of advice I gave him got him laid 3 times more last month. I love game.

Go on, what was the advice?

Wibbs · 06-02-2015 8:20pm

OK folks as the charter says no discussion of PUA technique stuff. It's sailed close to that line already so let's keep it away from said line. Thanks.

RedJoker · 06-02-2015 8:58pm

Speaking of which, thanks to the mods for being so flexible about this stuff in the thread, it's a difficult area to moderate, must have been a lot of tough judgment calls here. It's been a great discussion and I've certainly reconsidered a lot of my views thanks to it.

A lot of advice is highly individual anyway, too much information can be more an issue rather than just taking action. Still nice to help a guy get through his particular issue and get such immediate results.

Pug160 · 07-02-2015 8:37pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Really?

I used to have a very high opinion of it as a scientist. They called out quacks and lawyered up when necessary instead of retracting. A lot of their opinion pieces are very good. However, a few of them (*cough*Jessica Valenti*cough*cough*) like to treat men as a homogeneous population before blaming them for all sorts of absurd things.

I think the articles I'm referring to were written by men. I'd probably struggle to find similar pieces written by female Guardian journalists for sure. To be honest, whenever I see terms like ''entitlement'' and ''rape culture'' I just switch off. I just imagine some windbag with a chip on their shoulder, tarring an entire gender with the same, patronising brush. I realise that journalists often exaggerate in order to provoke a response - it's a tactic that usually has the desired effect. But I'd rather read something at least attempting to be objective. I had a look at a few of their articles today, and saw one journalist trying to compare Ched Evans to ISIS.

Here's one about PUAs: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/12/pua-pick-up-artists-julien-blanc-dapper-laughs

Whenever pickup is mentioned by the female journalists, it's the really extreme end of the scale - people like Julien Blanc are apparently normal within the community. And they only seem to mention the really outdated stuff from The Game, without realising (or not wanting to realise) that there are many men out there who simply want to be more successful with women without resorting to manipulation. This particular woman, Hadley Freeman, seems to be implying that a huge percentage of men must be using PUA tactics because she thinks she's met a few men who have tried to ''neg'' her.

ancapailldorcha · 08-02-2015 12:16am

Pug160 wrote: »

I think the articles I'm referring to were written by men. I'd probably struggle to find similar pieces written by female Guardian journalists for sure. To be honest, whenever I see terms like ''entitlement'' and ''rape culture'' I just switch off. I just imagine some windbag with a chip on their shoulder, tarring an entire gender with the same, patronising brush. I realise that journalists often exaggerate in order to provoke a response - it's a tactic that usually has the desired effect. But I'd rather read something at least attempting to be objective. I had a look at a few of their articles today, and saw one journalist trying to compare Ched Evans to ISIS.

Here's one about PUAs: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/12/pua-pick-up-artists-julien-blanc-dapper-laughs

Whenever pickup is mentioned by the female journalists, it's the really extreme end of the scale - people like Julien Blanc are apparently normal within the community. And they only seem to mention the really outdated stuff from The Game, without realising (or not wanting to realise) that there are many men out there who simply want to be more successful with women without resorting to manipulation. This particular woman, Hadley Freeman, seems to be implying that a huge percentage of men must be using PUA tactics because she thinks she's met a few men who have tried to ''neg'' her.

I think I linked to that piece before.

It's getting a bit petty to be honest. There's a Guardian mug at work. It says on the side, "Owned by noone, free to challenge anything". They only seem to care about social issues when there's a straight white man they can paint as some sort of villain. They didn't seem to keen on criticising the perpetrators of the Rotherham kidnappings for instance. It's a shame as they do publish decent pieces from time to time. In fairness, they do publish pieces on depression in men, domestic abuse against men (though very rarely) and they even published a piece about a guy who was falsely accused of rape.
If you have a gander at the sexism thread, you'll find plenty of examples of misandry. Regarding Ms. Freeman and PUAs, I'm almost inclined to believe that she fell for one once judging by the content of the article. Anyway, as long as they don't try to offer actual advice or guidance to men then it's fine as this means they can continue to demonise us as a gender.

dating bootcamp

Comments