# Why Do So Many of You Hate PUA Culture?



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

I've recently been seeing a lot of negativity surrounding PUAs, and I'd like to know what's so irritating about them. I have some ideological differences in values from them, but many here can't stand them.

What's so wrong about PUAs?


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

What's a PUA? Pick up artist?

I'd assume because the goal is sleeping with a woman and they're just learning how to game the system and manipulate women with the goal being to sleep with them the fastest/most.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Some claim that's not the reason, but rather to help guys develop and find love. Regardless, how is it any less manipulative than cosmetics or anything else that claims to make people more attractive?


----------



## DarkWolf (Sep 6, 2013)

Treating something so natural as a game is just irritating.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8705132/PDFs/Don't be a PUA.pdf


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

PUA is morally corrosive. It's not the only morally corrosive, neither is it the most morally corrosive thing, but it's corrosive enough that it should be opposed and shut down.


----------



## chris101 (Oct 24, 2013)

Unfortunately, the media has given the PUA community a bad rap. Yes, there are guys there that want to just sleep with as many women as possible but there are many more guys who are shy and just don't know how to even start a conversation with a woman, much less sleep with her. They are there to improve themselves and I see a lot of women appreciate the effort because they end up with a man and not a wuss.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

There is a difference between tips on "how to obtain and maintain a healthy relationship" and "how to get girls to like you, bro". Hint: the approach is massively different.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

I think a lot of people hear about really shallow ways men can attract women and think it must be "wrong", because they don't like the idea of women being shallow in any way.


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

marked174 said:


> Some claim that's not the reason, but rather to help guys develop and find love. Regardless, how is it any less manipulative than cosmetics or anything else that claims to make people more attractive?


Learning how to be socially skilled and confident and secure and all that are all personal things. Things that everyone should do.

A "pick up artist" is looking to, well, 'pick up' someone. 'pick up' generally meaning for sex. You don't go and 'pick up' girls for relationships.

Really now? Saying it's the same as cosmetics? C'mon now...


----------



## Hypaspist (Feb 11, 2012)

Meeting someone has to be natural and have some flow to it. If you're going over and practicing lines, you're trying too hard and are putting your faith in the wrong resources. Lines work for 15-20 seconds, then it's on the the meat of the conversation and personality which PUA won't teach you. Maybe how to be confident (to an extent), but nothing good comes out of cookie cutter programs.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

WolfStar said:


> What's a PUA? Pick up artist?
> 
> I'd assume because the goal is sleeping with a woman and they're just learning how to game the system and manipulate women with the goal being to sleep with them the fastest/most.


Men can't manipulate women for shit. Women are far more skilled manipulators and have men convinced so much that they spew out nonsense demonizing other men without giving it a critical thought.

Beside, human's are meant to "manipulate" each other. While the word has a negative connotation in our culture, our brains are actually wired to "manipulate" each other.

On a side note, I just had a large insight into myself. While I love the idea of men being proactive about improving their skills with women, the idea of being a "Pick-Up Artist" was stupid to me as it placed guys into the PUA identity box, which no guy should ever be in.

But also, it's associated with your idea of manipulating of sleeping with lots of women and really fast, which I thought was also stupid. I thought that the idea of trying to sleep with lots of women was wrong. But now I realize that wanting to sleep with lots of women is not wrong at all. If that's what you want, go for it! Humans are meant to be sexing all the time. But, you should go about it in a genuine way. Now I realize that it's the manipulative part that really disturbs me.

And, on the contrary, going up to a girl and expressing sexual interest (say by calling her cute) is totally genuine (as long as you really mean it despite whether she gives you something in return and if you do it to her face, not via a cat call) and true. But, trying to be nice and do things for her w/o showing sexual interest but expecting her to give you sex in your mind is very manipulative and quite disgusting now that I'm thinking about it.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Here's the thing. It's a marketing ploy. Why do the books cost so much?

A lot of men don't get laid as soon or as often as we'd like to believe. There are many who are virgins out of high school or even college. However, it tends to capitalize on that social belief in order to propagate its technique.

I'm not against advice that shows people how to flirt, but the PUA market tends to delve from that goal of flirting. Sure, there are some useful snippets of advice, but the books mostly use techniques to subtly undermine your self confidence. Why does it do that? Well, if you're unconfident, you're going to look for a "product" that will help you gain that confidence. What better way to do that than to promise a product to give you self-confidence and then have that product use techniques to subtly undermine it. If you don't have lots and lots of sex and show "value", you're a "beta". And a beta is the worst thing to be.

Look at the terminology for a bit. AFC (Average Frustrated Chump) is a normal guy, but just by the name alone, it's a bad thing to be. You don't want to be an AFC, you want to be an ALPHA! If the book really wanted to help men build confidence, they would avoid that terminology altogether.

Something that can help is to think, "What are the steps I can take to express what I want to express, here, in this moment?" and then start believing in the power of your sex appeal. I'm not talking about being alpha. I'm talking about the ability everyone has to be a sexual being. There are people who would want to screw you, no matter how unattractive you think you are. I know because I find people with non-"ideal" body types attractive, and I know other men (and some women) who do, too.

Like, if I had a choice to screw an older bear-type man and the average skinny bikini model which society has conditioned me to believe is attractive, I'd pick the former enthusiastically. And I'm more attracted to women. I have no attraction to the average male models, either.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

marked174 said:


> What's so wrong about PUAs?


Pretty much everything. Here's a worrying premise at the outset: there are guys who turn to PUA because they are/feel deficient, low-esteemed, defeated, or have desire to up their "numbers" for an ego. It's all artificial; to adjust themselves to meet perceived societal values but feel incapable of achieving it via their *true* self.

They're *playing a game*. They learn manipulation tactics to use on women to their advantage and for self-serving needs. It's not about the woman, it's about them, for them. One in, one out. I think PUA now is synonymous with player.

The basic info is everywhere, guys just need to practice them: self-confidence is a key one. PUAs, at the start anyway, are NOT confident beneath. Perhaps the experiences and people they use along the way may one day help them achieve that? but they are not good guys at the outset. It's morally corrupt to manipulate people for your ways. And the fact that they don't see that or are ignorant is a reflection of their poor character.

Yet, from what I've read on PerC, it seems some guys are genuinely trying to just attract a mate for keeps. But still, PUA is NOT the answer. Would you admit to the girl, once/if she reciprocates, that you did PUA on her to get her? Also, I would think that if it worked on me, has it worked on other girls? All this time, I was being manipulated and you creepily watched my every step to plan your next move from a text? Yuck.

Who's the more desired: PUA vs guy. Guy (and all idiosyncrasies). Hands down.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Well I don't know about dating,but I have the television running, and there's this infomercial of a guy who has a show on A&E about house flipping, and he wants you to know how to make money in real estate. That may be good and all, but if you see the reports about housing sales, currently, they are not good. So you take the class, get the certificate,but there is no guarantee of turning a profit in real estate especially when the conditions aren't great. I think PUA works on a similar idea. It gives you the ideal of what you think is true,but, when you stop and think about it, do you really think a successful skirt chaser is going to tell you his secrets? And it would only mean more competition for him. Why does he need that? No, he's going to just create an elaborate program that sounds good, in order to get your money to pay the rent. That's called a con-artist. That's the reason people hate PUA.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

I have friends in the PUA community & head out with them to bars/clubs occasionally.

I believe people should strive to grow in all aspects of life. Having the skill to be a good conversationalist & seduce women is a potent skill that a man should have. In the end it's not about manipulation, it's just about having a good time, being yourself & bringing a woman into your world.

I like getting out of my comfort zone, taking risks & meeting new people. The culture of going to bars/clubs with other people who also want to meet woman & cold approaching them is a thrill & all good for me.

When I think of it, there's 2 paths a man can take in relation to this subject. When a guy wants to meet women &/or have a healthy sex life with them... he can either drown in his self pity (sit at home doing nothing) or immerse himself in a community with like minded individuals.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Sounds like it's for the sake of a trophy, a nice little paper to hang on the wall and brag to all the friends about 
And for personal reasons, it makes romance completely meaningless and lackluster


----------



## bengalcat (Dec 8, 2010)

Because it relies on preying on people's insecurities. The PUAs themselves start from insulting and putting the "lesser" males in their place and then promising to rebuild them into something better. Then they encourage their followers to use psychological tricks to take advantage of the insecurities of the women they're after. Negging for example. I don't like methods that require tearing someone down to get what you want. 

Like tricky loan and credit schemes for poor people, or cults for people desperately searching for meaning, belonging or success. (I'm also dubious of a lot of "female enhancement" products, because while they can be fun, arty and a way of playing and expressing oneself, by and large I think they are successful because they feed off of the brainwashing of women to believe that they were born physically flawed.) 

I also don't like the world and language the PUA movement has created. It is an extremely simplistic world, containing all sorts of neat boxes and pathways, which I suppose is one reason why a number of not very well socialised young people get drawn to it and buy into it for a time. It shits on the complexity and possibilities that actually exist - not everyone meets in a bar, or finds the one way of dressing or thinking or behaving appealing, or turns you down on a given day because you're only a beta. Buying into the PUA view of the world feels to me akin to buying into the idea of the American dream. "Act like an alpha male and panties and adoration will be at your feet!"

I also don't much like PUA from my personal experience of it. The guys who use those techniques somehow make no sense. It's like their communication is all projection and very little linkage. It's kind of jarring, the persona with little individualised, unique substance. They also usually seem oblivious to the fact that this is how they come off to anyone who's paying attention. It's even more jarring when at some point the act comes down and you actually see them, there's something a bit sad in that moment because you realise that they would like to be with someone who wants them and not the act. (The beauty of this is that the PUA teacher can then retort with "oh well obviously he's just doing it wrong blahblahblah" - which is perfect because the system can therefore never be faulty or wrong itself. PUA teachers are very good at blaming the students and insisting that the fault can never lie with the system.)


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Because their goal is clearly to manipulate women into sleeping with them. 

If so many PUA techniques didn't involve what is essentially trickery I think people wouldn't be as apprehensive about them.

A lot of course depends on which school of PUA we're talking about.


----------



## Kyandigaru (Mar 11, 2012)

I don't care much for it to hate PUAs. if there was a class for fat women to be able to get date with hot GQ men..? Shiiid.... i'd be the first in line!


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Arclight said:


> TThe simple solution is to abstain from fucking the guy until you know what his true intentions are. If the guy only wants sex the clues ought to be pretty apparent pretty quickly.


No, it's not always apparently because PUA's like to lie about their intentions. Not all guys are truthful about sticking around, are they?


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> No, it's not always apparently because PUA's like to lie about their intentions. Not all guys are truthful about sticking around, are they?


Then wait until you are sure.. It's not rocket science. The responsibility is shared between two consenting people. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head. (That is a whole different issue , obviously) If you don't want be used for sex .. Don't have sex unless you are sure.. It is always your choice.. That is why it is classified as "consensual".
It's not impossible to be discerning and patient if something means so much to you.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> What a bizarre comparison..
> 
> A woman is still the same person if she wears make up or not, she is not acting as a different person. If a man doesn't like what a woman looks like without make up on, then that's a little shallow but to say a woman has lied and deceived because she wore make up is a little silly.
> 
> If someone is acting as a PUA, then they're acting like a different person to acquire something.


To be fair, that isn't entirely true. Some women go to absurd lengths to mutate their appearance for the benefit of Man-X whom they've never met and exists primarily in their imagination. When comparing deception, deceit through lying and misrepresentation through set-dressing varry by degrees, and with that being so, the two have enough room to overlap.


----------



## JoetheBull (Apr 29, 2010)

Honestly I have considered trying to figure out the PUA ways to meet and date women since despite reading more books on dating then I would like and still have no idea or luck in doing so. But every time I watch a video and/or read something, my instincts seems find something irksome about it. Could be Fi. No idea. It's kind of last ditch plan I have put to the back end of the burner along with mail order brides. Giving up, castration via blow torch, and suicide seem like more desirable plans to try first then those two.

As some one who wishes his sex life actually had some kind of existence, I don't think doing it through PUA schooling is such a good plan. I think it's too much of a waste of time learning especially if it is used only once and then no longer needed. Plus the amount of drainage of time and energy to just to get laid I don't think it would be really worth it. I can barely survive both work and class energy wise. 

That's just my take on things as some one who isn't an alpha, beta, or omega guy.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

I haven't got enough to do with it to hate it, but it's just dumb and teaches people that it's a good idea to de-evolve. Oh well, it's up to them, I guess.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Arclight said:


> It's not impossible to be discerning and patient if something means so much to you.


If it means that much to you, I'd argue it is but nevermind.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> If it means that much to you, I'd argue it is but nevermind.


I would prefer we debate rather than argue.
However my logic is flawless.

Not all people that had sex were used solely for sex. However all people who had sex and were used solely for sex.. had sex.
That is 100%.. The common denominator is having sex. To eliminate getting used for sex you have two choices. You can not have sex or you can make sure before you do. And there will always be risks regardless of how vigilant you are before you consent. 
You are not a slave to your hormones.. Although it is true that you cannot help what you feel.. You can always control how you behave..(unless you suffer from a disorder).
What augment could you possibly make? 
I am truly intrigued .. Maybe I'll learn something.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

As long as everyone is consenting and having a good time, I could really give a shit.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> What a bizarre comparison..
> 
> A woman is still the same person if she wears make up or not, she is not acting as a different person. If a man doesn't like what a woman looks like without make up on, then that's a little shallow but to say a woman has lied and deceived because she wore make up is a little silly.
> 
> If someone is acting as a PUA, then they're acting like a different person to acquire something.


A man is the same person if he shows game or not, he is not acting as a different person (he's just acting a different way). If a woman doesn't like how she feels about a man without his game on, then that's a little shallow but to say a man has lied and deceived because he used pick up is a little silly.

Not so bizarre after all.


----------



## ATLeow (Jun 2, 2013)

I direct you to the threads concerning the definition of 'douchebag'.

In my humble opinion, I think it's a useful group identity that has been developed primarily as a means of legitimising and commercialising what is otherwise standardised douchebaggery.

If casual hookups are your thing, that's fine. Really, your sexuality and relationship preferences are not superior or inferior to anyone else's. Many women share your preferences. There's nothing wrong with self-improvement to attempt to make yourself more attractive to your potential hookup. But if you feel the need to join a self-identified club treating women as soulless objects to be gamed and belittled into sex, if you are of the idea that you need to attend some kind of training regimen to do so...well then, I sincerely hope you manage to hook up with a women with an equivalent mindset, you should have fun together.

You don't need to do any of these to hook up. Try being, I don't know, the human being you are, and treat your hookup likewise. You don't need to be a 'PUA' to successfully attract people into casual sex. Identifying as this has no correlation whatsoever with approachability and social confidence and whatever else, the skills required and the identity are mutually exclusive.

The fact it has an acronym and is described as artistry is just annoying. It seems like a euphemism used seriously by people who do not realise it is a euphemism.

Overall the reason I hate 'PUA culture' is just that it correlates with people who show a stunning lack of intelligence and respect for women in general, and it's completely unnecessary to identify with or do any of that to achieve the goal of casual sex. Self-improvement in that regard may well have been the genuine origin of this 'culture' but it's not what it stands for. It's become a club for misogynists and people who know better do not need to identify with it.


----------



## angeleyes (Feb 20, 2013)

Here's my number on a cocktail napkin...


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

MisterD said:


> It's not black & white. Learning principles & skills from the PUA culture is just one of the many ways you can learn to approach women. As an analogy, boxing is not the only way that you can learn fighting... People should learn from different styles & take in what works for them.
> 
> "Pick up" is simply talking to other people. It's not limited to clubbing, bars & partying. That holds way too many limitations.
> 
> I can't grasp how "normal" guy is supposed to defined. He's just a guy. Simply sounds like PUA was too focused on getting the woman or conflicted, rather than having a good time & lost his shit/threw a tantrum.


Yeah, "normal" was non-PUA. I get what you're trying to get at. What I'm trying to convey is this: they are creating a distance between themselves and the person they're using it on. Why? Because they are distracted from getting to know the person (1. focusing on picking up tactics, 2. ulterior motive), hence, being "emotionally unavailable". When they become good, like the guy I encountered, they see the person as "just another". Wasn't really a tantrum, his demeanor changed when he knew he "lost" the game. True colors revealed.

You pick up talking skills by trial and error and *focusing on getting to know people for real*. First and foremost, not as a secondary gain from manipulation tactics. It may work but there are costs.

"picking up" is talking to people with an ulterior motive, and knowingly trying to manipulate the situation so that you are at an advantage. What if a female learns tactics to be a "femme fatale" or "playette"? She'll reel you in, and your friend, and that other guy.But you didn't know this (yet). Nice feeling, right?

I hope more people become aware of this, because then it'll show and it will backfire.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

after reading my way through the entire thread, i've forgotten what it's actually about--PUA-something...

doing something to develop different sides of yourself (in this case "social strengths") isn't bad, but the only real hindrance is it's coming from a place that can't possibly teach you it; it's something that has to just be learned through experience. now, they do give a "support network"--in way, by allowing a group of people with similar needs to exist--but it just seems like what would come about would not be true confidence. it's a philosophy based around insecurity--whatever grows in it's place will always be reliant upon the group/philosophy itself... i guess you can argue that it would allow for a substitute of sorts, something to hold the true things place while ... "mental fortitude" is built?

in any case, if it really is like a the videos posted on this thread (unless those were spoofs/jokes), it's basically saying, "hey. be as non-genuine as possible, and come off as arrogant or cocky"... that actually seems worse than being quiet or just acting how you naturally would. even though the latter doesn't fit the image of "strong male confidence", it is actually a lot stronger than the former--or i should that it takes more strength to be one's self. 

plus, beginning from a more natural platform will one to practice "being themselves" even when it's hard (when you/we feel the need to put on some sort of mask). that way you don't build up a lot of unnecessary "social adaptations" that will eventually have to be broken away (or altered yet again) as you grow out of them. it just seems so much easier... to not... try? you can just acknowledge your nervousness/whatever, relax, and let that direct you. 

(p.s. if the flip-side is just a place of support emerging among male culture, creating something that has not existed previously [men being open about their weaknesses and insecurities to each other in an "appropriate" sphere]--then ok. i really see nothing wrong with that... although in reality, i think that would be the minority)


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> Yeah, "normal" was non-PUA. I get what you're trying to get at. What I'm trying to convey is this: they are creating a distance between themselves and the person they're using it on. Why? Because they are distracted from getting to know the person (1. focusing on picking up tactics, 2. ulterior motive), hence, being "emotionally unavailable". When they become good, like the guy I encountered, they see the person as "just another". Wasn't really a tantrum, his demeanor changed when he knew he "lost" the game. True colors revealed.
> 
> You pick up talking skills by trial and error and *focusing on getting to know people for real*. First and foremost, not as a secondary gain from manipulation tactics. It may work but there are costs.
> 
> ...


Perhaps if he's new. As you go into deeper & deeper into it you learn to love the game & love the company of people... Not exactly getting laid. It's just a product of living life how you want to.

I can't explain it to you in words, you'd have to be a guy that walked through the path & journey.


----------



## CindyLou (Jun 21, 2013)

VeraH said:


> Yeah, "normal" was non-PUA. I get what you're trying to get at. What I'm trying to convey is this: they are creating a distance between themselves and the person they're using it on. Why? Because they are distracted from getting to know the person (1. focusing on picking up tactics, 2. ulterior motive), hence, being "emotionally unavailable". When they become good, like the guy I encountered, they see the person as "just another". Wasn't really a tantrum, his demeanor changed when he knew he "lost" the game. True colors revealed.
> 
> You pick up talking skills by trial and error and *focusing on getting to know people for real*. First and foremost, not as a secondary gain from manipulation tactics. It may work but there are costs.
> 
> ...


Agree. And the mindset is very dangerous. From what I've read it taught the man to view the women in a way that cut them off emotionally from them as a whole. So, we are no longer (were we ever?) viewed as human beings with feelings and free will. It makes it easier to "neg" and to manipulate us if they see us that way. 

I didn't want to bring up the borderline rapey stuff I read where women were convinced or manipulated to sleep with the "artist" even after she says no.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l ''hate'' it in so far as it affects me personally, which is not very much since l'm not anywhere near men who give two shits about such things.

l actually take into account, someone else's self image. The way you view _yourself _means something to me, l could never take someone who viewed themselves as benefiting from it seriously.

You don't seem like that type at all to me OP


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

uhhhh

first off, pick-up "artists" aren't artists and PUA "culture" isn't a culture

secondly, i don't know... if you're in a club and a guy's hitting on you, there's a slim chance he wants to get to know you on a deep, meaningful level. i don't go clubbing but when a guy i don't know hits on me in general, i have no problem ignoring him. i mean, it's not about blaming the woman because the pick-up "artist" is the one clearly in the wrong here but if you're a woman, please be careful. don't let them fool you. don't be afraid to shut them down. you don't owe anyone anything. if he's going to disrespect you by using shitty pick-up lines just to get into your pants, you can disrespect him right back by ignoring him. if he gets mad, laugh at him and continue to do so until he leaves you alone.

side note: i find it funny when some men say women trick them with make up like nah sorry, sit down, you trick us into thinking you’re actually tolerable until we find out you’re not and you don’t even have mac to blame

as if wearing mascara is equivalent to developing a whole new persona. we do the former because we like to look good, you do the latter so you can trick and manipulate someone into sleeping with you. 

(this is, of course, directed towards to douchebags, not men in general)


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Modal Soul said:


> uhhhh
> 
> first off, pick-up "artists" aren't artists and PUA "culture" isn't a culture
> 
> secondly, i don't know... if you're in a club and a guy's hitting on you, there's a slim chance he wants to get to know you on a deep, meaningful level. i don't go clubbing but when a guy i don't know hits on me in general, i have no problem ignoring him. i mean, it's not about blaming the woman because the pick-up "artist" is the one clearly in the wrong here but if you're a woman, please be careful. don't let them fool you. don't be afraid to shut them down. you don't owe anyone anything. if he's going to disrespect you by using shitty pick-up lines just to get into your pants, you can disrespect him right back by ignoring him. if he gets mad, laugh at him and continue to do so until he leaves you alone.


I was blown away by how horrible that was. You judge men's motives , try to justify rude behavior, place focus on blame, reduce men and women into solely economic entities, espouse "eye for eye vengeance" behavior, and promote mockery and conceit.



Modal Soul said:


> side note: i find it funny when some men say women trick them with make up like nah sorry, sit down, you trick us into thinking you’re actually tolerable until we find out you’re not and you don’t even have mac to blame
> 
> as if wearing mascara is equivalent to developing a whole new persona. we do the former because we like to look good, you do the latter so you can trick and manipulate someone into sleeping with you.
> 
> (this is, of course, directed towards to douchebags, not men in general)


Right, because "looking good" has nothing to do with convincing men to have sex with you.
The Science of Makeup – Observations of a Nerd
http://journal.scconline.org/pdf/cc2008/cc059n02/p00127-p00137.pdf

Oh wait... it has everything to do with it.

The only difference between the Pickup industry and the makeup industry is that the makeup industry has a better marketing campaign.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

*adorable "to be fair" post removed*


currently nauseated.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Why do we hate PUA culture? 

Douchebags 
like 
these 
don't 
help.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Why do we hate PUA culture?
> 
> Douchebags
> like
> ...



Ok. never mind. I take being fair back. I think men are disgusting pig assholes. and the decent ones, should despise them even more than I do for making them look bad. bad? did I say bad? I mean *REPULSIVE.*


----------



## FaveteLinguis (Mar 5, 2010)




----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

marked174 said:


> I was blown away by how horrible that was. You judge men's motives , try to justify rude behavior, place focus on blame, reduce men and women into solely economic entities, espouse "eye for eye vengeance" behavior, and promote mockery and conceit.
> 
> 
> Right, because "looking good" has nothing to do with convincing men to have sex with you.
> ...


ehhh.. i was gonna debate this with you until i realized you, like me, made unfair assumptions about the opposite sex and now we both look like hypocritical assholes. pick-up artists are still sex-crazed lunatics, though.

what i said before still stands:



> as if wearing mascara is equivalent to developing a whole new persona. we do the former because we like to look good, you do the latter so you can trick and manipulate someone into sleeping with you.


although i do see where you're coming from, claiming they're two sides of the same coin makes you appear shallow for valuing looks as much as you do personality. beauty is only skin deep. lying about who you are and what you're about is far worse than wearing make-up to enhance the way you look. this goes both ways but men don't usually wear make-up, so...

@_Ningsta Kitty_ JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. WHAT DID I JUST READ?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

To lighten mood and for common comedy, I post more flash fontanelli videos.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Modal Soul said:


> @_Ningsta Kitty_ JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. WHAT DID I JUST READ?


My sentiments exactly ... *points below*




Kanerou said:


> Why do we hate PUA culture?
> 
> Douchebags
> like
> ...


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

LOL! Go to the LAST Link! the one appropriately titled "help"


It's a thread about a dude who is talking nasty to this girl and she sends the pics to his mom.

THEN. the FUNNY PART ... 
*
Go down to Post #7 ...
*
HAHAHAHA!!!!!

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

They thought she was "RELISHING" in her "power" ... they sound so serious too!

like they ACTUALLY believe she's the bad person in the scenario. 
not that she is a FUCKING PERSON who was pissed the fuck off for GOOD REASON! 

HAHAHA! WOW ... that is all I can say (being nice) ... WOW.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

That link is just hilarious. Liquid gold? Yeah, excuse me while I vomit..


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> That link is just hilarious. Liquid gold? Yeah, excuse me while I vomit..


A dramatic reading for your listening pleasure.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

:laughing: Ah, so pathetic and hilarious at the same time. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Modal Soul said:


> ehhh.. i was gonna debate this with you until i realized you, like me, made unfair assumptions about the opposite sex and now we both look like hypocritical assholes.


 citation needed


Modal Soul said:


> although i do see where you're coming from, claiming they're two sides of the same coin makes you appear shallow for valuing looks as much as you do personality.


 That's the lie that society tells: that the thing that makes my dick hard is soooooo much more shallow than the thing that makes your vag wet. Come down off the pedestal. 

Also, stating the similarities between pickup and makeup gives absolutely no indication of my values. I could care a million times more about personality than looks and it wouldn't change the fact that both industries solely exist to profit off of the insecurities of people regarding their need to sexually interact through creating a need in the consumer and promising a delivery of sexual acceptance through the use of deceptive manipulation.



Modal Soul said:


> beauty is only skin deep. lying about who you are and what you're about is far worse than wearing make-up to enhance the way you look. this goes both ways but men don't usually wear make-up, so...


 You only think that because our society is sold on the idea that it is okay for women to hide behind makeup masks, creating an unrealistic beauty standard which undermines the genuineness of female person-hood and corrupts the perspective of what men hold for women. Thanks to makeup, I don't even know what most women look like and like it or not, that's a huge part of who you are and what you're about.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

meh. i stumbled on this thread and skimmed my way through it out of curiosity about what pua meant. no real opinion on the current state of it because i have no information on it. people don't hit on mothers, or maybe mothers just grow up and learn to give out 'don't waste my time' signals, don't know.

but anyway. looking for personal-context correlatives, i skimmed back through my memory and found quite a few old memories of encounters with people who probably called themselves pickup artists - if i'm inferring the general type of guy right. so finally i have an answer.

it's not so much that i hate them, personally. i sure hated being in contact with them, but the answer to 'why?' is simple. embarrassment. the whole structure of their 'technique' was usually so obvious it simply crushed me with embarrassment.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

^ (oops, not you lilysocks) Your comparisons are ridiculous and frankly I think you know that and are just trolling. This thread was funny, though.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> That link is just hilarious. Liquid gold? Yeah, excuse me while I vomit..


obviously speaking of the links here ...

lol! yeah ... one girl was really clever and mimicked the list with , if you believe this crap you *insert clever list*. and then one of the men called her a creative hater. lol. so funny. he was pretending to have feelings.

being an old granny I found this in particularly amusing ... 
apparently, after 25 ... you're not valuable anymore. 

which is ... soo funny. because any man with a brain knows what's good for him, and knows that if he truly wants to be successful, he needs more than just becoming a legend in douchbaggary ... honestly. then there were nasty old men posting too! they were like, "yeah. anything over 25 is out and that's why I have to work to stay in my prime" ... and I'm thinking, I remember dudes like you when I was young. and I see you now as well. you never had a prime dumb ass because you're gross. and now you're just old.

old and nasty chasing women nearly half your age because you're such a fucking loser you never developed the social skills for a relationship. stupid fucking old bald man who has to pop a Viagra to keep it up more than 20 fucking minutes and this is important because no one you're with loves you. you're such a douche that you'll inevitably pay a whore to have a sex life. and you'll forget or never know what it's like to have eyes looking to you while getting a blow job. because anyone who would kneel for you is either inebriated, is shuddering on the inside or has an IQ the temperature of tepid oatmeal. 

you're gonna keep on believing your bullshit and blame the whole world for smelling of shit. and within your little delusion you will find one day your balls past your knees with no one to help wipe your ass. wait. you will. she'll NOT be aesthetically pleasing and most definitly will be OLDER THAN 25. LOL!!! :laughing:

she'll be the CNA from the Philippines... lol!



LOL! I'm not really angry. I really don't give a fuck for the pimple faced aged adolescence that stinks up half of society. The other half is fucking awesome and I REDUSE to be jaded! ... I'm totally just doing it to do it because I'm good at telling people off and can't really do it in reality .... and ya know. That "protector" in me really gets off on making the bad guy cry. I'm vicariously living as batman here.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

marked174 said:


> *Thanks to makeup, I don't even know what most women look like *and like it or not, that's a huge part of who you are and what you're about.


You must live around women who wear some serious spackle.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> ^ (oops, not you lilysocks) Your comparisons are ridiculous


 Unsupported assertion



isingthebodyelectric said:


> and frankly I think you know that and are just trolling.


 ad hominem


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

marked174 said:


> Unsupported assertion


 Mothers name is Barb and she used to have a penis.



marked174 said:


> ad hominem


 Shit pants in 4th grade, never lived it down, grew up introverted and socially inept, reads PUA to get penis wet. sadly, he doesn't pull it off so defends material to look cool on the internet.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

marked174 said:


> Unsupported assertion


 That's called an "opinion" btw

Also reacting to any kind of challenge to your perspective with "LOGICAL FALLACY!!" isn't intelligent or useful.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

:tongue: I haven't even read the thread through. 


I just see that dog defending PUA every fucking time the subject comes up! LOL!



edit: solid minute later. still laughing.


----------



## FaveteLinguis (Mar 5, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> :tongue: I haven't even read the thread through.
> _
> I just see that dog defending PUA every fucking time the subject comes up!_ LOL!


God bless it! My room mates are trying to sleep and I just burst out laughin.....I blame you for the dirty looks in the morning .


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

FaveteLinguis said:


> God bless it! My room mates are trying to sleep and I just burst out laughin.....I blame you for the dirty looks in the morning .


It was the Barb comment, wasn't it. :tongue:


----------



## FaveteLinguis (Mar 5, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> It was the Barb comment, wasn't it. :tongue:


The Barb was funny, but the dog comparison killed me.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

FaveteLinguis said:


> The Barb was funny, but the dog comparison killed me.


:blushed: I'm really just entertaining myself but you have no idea how happy when other people enjoy my "silly". His avatar is of a dog. and no joke, for the last year I've been on this forum, EVERY time PUA comes up, he comes running up to defend it. It's so ironic and perfectly funny! lol!!! ... 



I did kinda feel bad after I said it. I thought, what if something sad happened with his mom and I just said she used to have a penis. and then I thought, what if he REALLY DOES have trouble getting the PUA to work in real life so he defends it online a lot to look cool and because he knows a lot about it.

 I ruin my fun all the time in my head. I need help


----------



## Ravenetta (Oct 23, 2013)

It's dishonest, manipulative, shallow, disrespectful, and controlling - of both the people being picked up and those lonely people paying so much for the training.

I feel badly for the individuals involved, but have mostly contempt for the PUA system that exploits people on so many levels. True self-confidence is not based on the premise that you have to trick people, lower their self-esteem, assume they are against you to start with, etc. in order to have them respond to you. Self confidence is about knowing oneself honestly, becoming healthy physically, emotionally, and mentally, then seeking out healthy people, making them feel stronger for your presence, finding out who they actually are as a person, and making a meaningful connection. PUA is the antithesis to this.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

I first noticed PU about five years ago. It was a lot tamer than the stuff brought up here. It was a guy named David DeAngelo, and his pitch surrounded the premise that "attraction isn't a choice", that women couldn't choose who or what they like and are hardwired that way deep down inside. He would then go on to say he could teach men how to be attractive, but not through pick up lines. No, he would introduce "deep inner game" which would transform men deep down inside. 

Initially, I was like: "So women can't change who they are deep down inside so you're going to teach men how to change who they are deep down inside?"

However, that's a criticism of the PU industry and not PU culture. When I speak of pick up culture, I was referring to how people on this forum say things like "That sounds like PU bullshit" or "The PUA scum over there". I wanted to explore what it was specifically that got that kind of visceral reaction. 

The consensus regarding the culture seems to be two-fold.

1. That PU is manipulative. 
That would be a fair criticism, but only by those who are purists on the subject. As I stated earlier, you can't get mad at men for being dishonest while giving a pass to women for being dishonest in their own way. That being said, I do think that dishonesty is wrong, even when it comes to first impressions. 

2. That PU is hatefully sexist. 
I think that it would depend on the source. Some branches of PU are sexist, while others are not. The really sexist ones don't seem as sexist as they do narcissistic. These "horrible" PUAs don't seem like they despise women, but that they despise other men as well. Taking the psychos out of the picture, I would contend that PU wrongfully places the onus on men. All PU starts with the premise that men aren't with women because something is wrong with those men, and that they need to change. I don't think that David Deangelo was trying to be sexist, but his reasoning assumed that men could change when women could not, implying a subliminal inferiority.

Regardless, both of those legitimate criticisms do not provide insight into the philosophies or ideologies of PU culture, and I suspect that some of the comments on this forum which reference PUAs speaks to those idealogies in some way. I was hoping that we could explore some of those philosophies, and could conduct a critical analysis to them.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

I think the dislike towards PUA comes from its dishonesty and approach towards women not as people but more things you have to trick in order to get sexual gratification. Ideally both sexes would develop as people in order to appeal to the opposite sex and make compromises and love eqch other as people instead of trying to play one another for what they can get from them. 
The ideal is that each provides for the other something that makes them happy. With this the guy gets laid and doesnt have much concern for the womans interests. Its too one sided.

I think some guys resort to PUA perhaps from a frustration to attract women. I can see how a lack of physical affection and an expectation to ones self worth as a man could lead to resentment of women and bitterness but it would be misguided and from emotional immaturity.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

I have no problem with men learning to converse and seal the deal with women. I'm the type of guy where a win is a win no matter how you get it. I think it has to be said you have to elevate the quality of your game if you seek to establish a quality relationship with a quality woman. Like attracts like. A man who isn't confident will attract the type of woman he'll never be satisfied with or will never be satisfied with him.

I don't know about the "manipulation" tactics PUAs employ but I can only speak for myself. Be honest about your intentions when you approach a woman. If she's down for some casual sex (which I guess PUA aims for?), then I don't see the problem if both parties are down. As a man, whether your game is natural or engineered, does it really matter? Women are going to choose regardless, so as man put your best foot forward.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> :blushed: I'm really just entertaining myself but you have no idea how happy when other people enjoy my "silly". His avatar is of a dog. and no joke, for the last year I've been on this forum, EVERY time PUA comes up, he comes running up to defend it. It's so ironic and perfectly funny! lol!!! ...


 I've never defended PUA. Just because I disagree with a criticism of something doesn't mean I support the thing being criticized. 




Ningsta Kitty said:


> I did kinda feel bad after I said it. I thought, what if something sad happened with his mom and I just said she used to have a penis. and then I thought, what if he REALLY DOES have trouble getting the PUA to work in real life so he defends it online a lot to look cool and because he knows a lot about it.
> 
> I ruin my fun all the time in my head. I need help


To be honest, I don't use PU. I don't think the PU industry is selling what I'm looking for.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@marked174

women can't control who they're attracted to any more then men can. sadly, were constantly told to focus on our bodies to attract and men to focus on what they can exert with dominance (and all that applies). it's really considerably outdated 'industrial age' socioeconomic lenses in my opinion. because the fact of the matter is women can provide for themselves now. and men don't have as much social obligation to carry on traditions as they once did ...

both men and women can be more free to explore their own interests, goals, dreams for their futures with or without children. and so in essence, in today's day and age the progress is a double edge sword. on the one hand we're free from unreasonable restraint to pursue our happiness however on the other hand, people more than ever BUY THINGS and LEASE PEOPLE. Which is incredibly unfortunate. If I buy(loyal) to a person (their growth, and happiness etc.) then I have committed to a partnership that provides me with my needs (2 incomes, sex and companionship - with or without children. lots of couples opt out). Men get the same from committing as well: 2 incomes, Sex, and Companionship.

But as I said, instead ... everyone is SO fucking obsessed with Kayane West's Dick and posting on Facebook that they forgot how to emotionally (humanly) connect with others and often times, even themselves. They are stupider more than ever, during the INFORMATION AGE. ... wtf. and to make matters worse, they purchase information as redundant as PUA material. Or in the case of a female, "how to play games". BOTH parties are stupid because at the end of the day, games will NOT work.

What works is to be who you are. When I say this, "be yourself". I do not want you to bring ALL of you on the first date. Bring your best foot forward. Show me your good. Then I'll get to see some bad. Inevitably I'll see the ugly. Within all of this, I focus on the good. Same applies for men. Studies of marriages that last are from couples that focus on the good of their partner (no one is perfect) as opposed to people who obsess over the bad or dwell on the ugly.

The only way anyone gets any better at "getting a woman" is to be patient enough to know a lady. And be willing to let her influence you positively. Not any woman. One you deem worthy enough to influence you. Same applies for women. It's with allowing other people who we admire, influence us, that we grow healthier within ourselves because often times, we are naturally drawn to those who are good for us. Even the ones that appear not to be good for us. The ones not good TO us, are the VERY people to teach us how to be good to ourselves ... I hope all of this doesn't sound like rubbish. Maybe mull on it before tossing it out the window.

Spending time on PUA is not getting you what you want. You are only focusing on understanding this culture ... as opposed to a woman. which is what I suspect to be the inevitable goal. Maybe put down the PUA books and spend your time defending your better half against your poor half, and get to know someone. and if you get laid during the relationship - great. if not - who cares. either way you learn something from the experience about women and more importantly .. yourself. 


Just a thought.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

marked174 said:


> To be honest, I don't use PU. I don't think the PU industry is selling what I'm looking for.


I don't think it is either ...

I'm sorry I told you that your mom was Barb. That wasn't nice.

But it was funny. wasn't it?

lol!!!


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Spending time on PUA is not getting you what you want. You are only focusing on understanding this culture ... as opposed to a woman. which is what I suspect to be the inevitable goal. Maybe put down the PUA books and spend your time defending your better half against your poor half, and get to know someone. and if you get laid during the relationship - great. if not - who cares. either way you learn something from the experience about women and more importantly .. yourself.
> 
> 
> Just a thought.


 I honestly have very little knowledge of PU. I was more interested in what this community thought about it, if they had the same criticisms that I had, what particularly was most offensive (sexism vs. manipulation vs. whatever), that sort of thing.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

marked174 said:


> I honestly have very little knowledge of PU. I was more interested in what this community thought about it, if they had the same criticisms that I had, what particularly was most offensive (sexism vs. manipulation vs. whatever), that sort of thing.


that's pretty weird. I specifically recall you several times within a variety of PUA threads. same avatar maybe and I could have sworn with the same name. however I'm bad with names so I'll assume it's the avatar. I may be confusing you with someone else I suppose ... well. never mind then! Best of luck mate!


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> that's pretty weird. I specifically recall you several times within a variety of PUA threads. same avatar maybe and I could have sworn with the same name. however I'm bad with names so I'll assume it's the avatar. I may be confusing you with someone else I suppose ... well. never mind then! Best of luck mate!


I think he has been, but to be honest, I don't think I've seen any real undeniable vocal support from him. He's just more on the sidelines, maybe defending it from what seems like canned rhetoric. Maybe you mentally combined him with some of the more pro-PUA people in the community. I know I've done a similar thing, but I think I was more asserting that we should have an open discussion about the issue with more constructive criticism, because the issue exists. Otherwise, men wouldn't be going to PUA.

To be honest, I'm personally on the fence. Even though I've made a few posts that seem like I support it... I've heard some crazy shit come out of my brother's mouth, and I don't defend some of the stuff he says. But I've also heard a lot of stuff from him personally that has helped me through some of my personal issues with self-esteem. I think it's kind of a double-edged sword. Some people have some insight into something, but it's trapped in a pile of shit.

But the sad thing is there's not much of a voice that _isn't_ PUA. So, if any guy looks to some sort of self-improvement on how to obtain a relationship, that's the deal he gets. To be fair, I've seen one blog site dedicated to giving men more positive advice, Dr. Nerdlove.

But it's easier for people to put their fingers in their ears and deny the problem than ever give any sort of address to the whole issue of the lack of sex-positive advice for men to start pursuing their own happiness, and the "cure" being promised through advice akin to a Cosmo article.



marked174 said:


> Regardless, both of those legitimate criticisms do not provide insight into the philosophies or ideologies of PU culture, and I suspect that some of the comments on this forum which reference PUAs speaks to those idealogies in some way. I was hoping that we could explore some of those philosophies, and could conduct a critical analysis to them.


There are a lot of themes of male dominance and female submission, and not really much advocacy of people going with their natural selves, which is why I compare PUA to Cosmopolitan. It goes with the simplest advice to fake people into thinking they have some magical solution for their insecurities.

A few theories I learned after looking it up on the internet:

*Shit testing:* This is the idea that women are always on trial to see if your "dominance" is up to par. But the funny thing is, to pass every shit test, you have to be a borderline narcissist. It also feeds into a common tactic to evade criticism through denial, because you can consider any ignoring or rejection a "shit test".

*Negging:* Showing value by saying a "negative compliment", e.g. telling a woman, "I like the way your hair looks, how many cans of hairspray did you use to get it that way?"

*Last minute resistance or the anti-slut defense:* The idea that slut-shaming can often transfer itself to the bedroom, which isn't wrong in and of itself, but this is covered in very controversial ways. I think the general rule is to step off after trying to communicate once, but some take it way too far and veer into rape territory. Like, pressuring or coercing into sex far. Thankfully, my brother told me that if you're in that situation, give up immediately and that enthusiastic consent is important.

*Bitch shield:* This pisses me off as an introvert. I don't like conversation, and I admit I can become very cold and terse when someone approaches me and invades my desire for personal space, but when a woman does it, she's labeled a bitch. 

*Peacocking:* I don't see this as a bad tactic, actually. I don't see much wrong with it, but I kinda think it's kinda ridiculous. I would find a man in a Christmas light sombrero awesome if he was kind and engaging. Something similar happened to me when I was in a pair of crutches after I sprained my ankle and it became too painful to walk. The crutches brought attention, and it sparked a conversation with a girl I thought was kinda cute.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> I first noticed PU about five years ago. It was a lot tamer than the stuff brought up here. It was a guy named David DeAngelo, and his pitch surrounded the premise that "attraction isn't a choice", that women couldn't choose who or what they like and are hardwired that way deep down inside. He would then go on to say he could teach men how to be attractive, but not through pick up lines. No, he would introduce "deep inner game" which would transform men deep down inside.
> 
> Initially, I was like: "So women can't change who they are deep down inside so you're going to teach men how to change who they are deep down inside?"
> 
> ...



The 30 second elevator pitch is basically "I used to be a nice guy, but now I am a jerk and I can get all the women I like, because a jerk is what they really want."



How to insult women and turn them on said:


> Put her in her place, tell her she’s a stupid idiot with Daddy issues, that she has low self-esteem, that she’s a whore, and reap the rewards of your jerkish behavior.
> *Women want to know why so many men are jerks: Because they made us this way–and it works.*
> 
> How to Insult Women and Turn Them On | AbsoluteAbility.com


What strikes me is the dichotomy thinking. Nice Guy-Jerk, Madonna-Whore, PickUp Artist - Average Frustrated Chump

Of course men need to change, or else be an Average Frustrated Chump for life. And you don't want that. The point is, if this negging even works (but who cares it fails 99 times, as long as you get laid the 100th time, right?), this is mostly thanks to those Average Frustrated Chumps, who think by engulfing her with compliments they can court her. But it's not one way or the other. Anyway, I don't feel like going through their whole philosophy. Here's a few links...

Study: Pickup Artist Training Works, But Makes You Feel Bad About Yourself

Inside The Game: How Online Pickup Artists Work


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

MisterD said:


> Perhaps if he's new. As you go into deeper & deeper into it you learn to love the game & love the company of people... Not exactly getting laid. It's just a product of living life how you want to.
> 
> I can't explain it to you in words, you'd have to be a guy that walked through the path & journey.


No. That guy I shared info on was NOT "new". He was a grown man, very street smart, 29 years. I didn't meet him at a bar but a "professional" (office) setting. The younger guys, like the ones at your age and younger, are practicing the practice (of player/"manly" guy, "cool" guy, "party boy", etc...). The similarity between the experienced player and starter dipshit? They're fucked up so, so badly in the head. It's really embarressing. Not my problem now that they don't see it.



> It's a product of living life how you want to.


Without regard to anyone else. That is just, mind my language, fucking (pun intended) selfish. And that's a point I noted earlier.



> I can't explain it to you in words, you'd have to ge a guy that walkedthrough the path & journey.


You need to give people a little more credit.... We're not intellectually capped nor deficient such that we have zero understanding or unable to create a perspective/insight into topic of PU"A", where content is smeared like shit in Dumb and Dumber all over the interwebs, books, and the Youtube.

And here's the thing, you say your friends are doing it and not you. Good. Watch them whilst you build your life the proper and fair way. See who reaps the bigger reward in the end. They may get 5x more girls (easy clubbing sluts, sorry) than you. So? You gonna seriously base your self worth on a numbers game? Quantity over quality? What kind of girls are they attracting? 

And if a PUA wants to one day settle, he'll have to try really hard to keep his track record secret. No decent woman would be stupid enough to settle for a PU"A". The important thing to note is, WHY DOES HE HAVE TO KEEP PUA SECRET? Coz it's fucking embarrassing and shameful, that's why. He has no natural charm, and he has no ability to cast some spell over girls that other "chumps" can't get, he's not miraculous. He's a sham, a fake, a manipulating PUA-hole. He can't let anyone know.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> help.


Holy shit... Thats the best way I've started my day in a long time. Seriously, a tight bear hug for that link. I was tearing.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VeraH said:


> They may get 5x more girls (easy clubbing sluts, sorry) than you. So? You gonna seriously base your self worth on a numbers game? Quantity over quality? What kind of girls are they attracting?


Calling them sluts, I don't think you prove to be much different from PUA's using that qualification.

First you see them as victims of manipulation, now they've become easy clubbing sluts, what's your point?


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Calling them sluts, I don't think you prove to be much different from PUA's using that qualification.
> 
> First you see them as victims of manipulation, now they've become easy clubbing sluts, what's your point?


Good pick up. I feel that one's actions are a reflection of one's values. A "player" (male "slut") = promiscuous. A "slut" = promiscuous.

A "slut" is not necessarily the only type of girls to be victimized.

Also, I was speaking with the clubbing scene as context in mind. Promiscuity galore. Semantics.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VeraH said:


> Good pick up. I feel that one's actions are a reflection of one's values. A "player" (male "slut") = promiscuous. A "slut" = promiscuous.
> 
> A "slut" is not necessarily the only type of girls to be victimized.
> 
> Also, I was speaking with the clubbing scene as context in mind. Promiscuity galore. Semantics.



Semantics? In my book, that's demonizing, and slutshaming. 

If it's not the only type that is victimized, why are you suggesting they are easy clubbing sluts? Because now it's convenient right, to devalue and objectify what is desired, calling the grapes sour? That's not nice for the other victims. Is this how you get your self-worth, at the expense of the ones you want people to believe you take it up for?


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Semantics? In my book, that's demonizing, and slutshaming.
> 
> If it's not the only type that is victimized, why are you suggesting they are easy clubbing sluts? Because now it's convenient right, to devalue and objectify what is desired, calling the grapes sour? That's not nice for the other victims. Is this how you get your self-worth, at the expense of the ones you want people to believe you take it up for?


I'm not saying it's ideal/right to slut-shame (which is, unfortunately, directed more at females) but a double standard exists IRL. 

"Slut" = promiscuous person. My opinion, which is all it is, is? A "slut" engages in actions that increases the probability of others judging them. For guys it seems overlooked and encouraged (?), for girls it is looked into. 

It is what it is. I don't know why. By my usage here I don't intend to promote slut-shaming. The word popped into mind.

How about in place of "clubbing slut", terminologies aside, "girls that let guys (not just PUA) use them at sleazy venues, after a 2 hour meeting, and then embark on the walk of shame the following morning home." 

These "party" girls let any guy (attractive enough in their eyes) in. A PUA takes advantage of this, which further propogates their defective view of other women. "Party" girl may not care; it fulfils her needs too. Other women, however, may/do care and get hurt. You don't go to bars looking for a life partner/long-term mate...


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I don't see the issue. Women can consent to sex if they want, and simply walk away if they don't want. If she's rushed into sex so fast, she wasn't looking for much past the sexual anyway.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

My biggest problem with PUA culture is that it actually works. This creates a serious feeling of cognitive dissonance in my head, because for the longest time I was a hopeless romantic/idealist when it came to love, and I don't want to believe that a significant portion of the female population is really that easy, naive, shallow and prone to manipulation. Integrity is one of, if not the most important quality I look for in a partner, and PUA culture is the antithesis of integrity (for both parties). 

This initiates a baseline lack of trust whenever I meet someone new or enter into a relationship, and while I don't think this is healthy, I also don't think it can be avoided. I know that not _all_ women are prone to these tactics, but there is really no way to find out until you have already spent a great deal of time and effort getting to know someone.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

SuburbanLurker said:


> My biggest problem with PUA culture is that it actually works. This creates a serious feeling of cognitive dissonance in my head, because for the longest time I was a hopeless romantic/idealist when it came to love, and I don't want to believe that a significant portion of the female population is really that easy, naive, shallow and prone to manipulation. Integrity is one of, if not the most important quality I look for in a partner, and PUA culture is the antithesis of integrity (for both parties).
> 
> This initiates a baseline lack of trust whenever I meet someone new or enter into a relationship, and while I don't think this is healthy, I also don't think it can be avoided. I know that not _all_ women are prone to these tactics, but there is really no way to find out until you have already spent a great deal of time and effort getting to know someone.


PUA tends to not be as successful on tamer girls where opposing values don't gel. Though I've seen some of these tamer girls get sucked in, but they also tend to be needy, insecure, emotionally under-developed. It works on promiscuous girls a breeze.

PUA will never score you the integrous girl since PU"A" is not integrous himself. Or rather, PUA (the ones I've met at least) really doesn't deserve an integrous girl.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

I hate the pick-up artist term, though my couple buddies and I get labeled as one. To us, we assume that women love sex but too afraid to show it since they might be labeled as sluts. So we help beautiful women like you out there by helping them open up to us and let ourselves take it from there, satisfying both of our needs. Win-win situation. No feelings harmed.


----------



## napkineater (Mar 26, 2013)




----------



## XO Skeleton (Jan 18, 2011)

WolfStar said:


> Learning how to be socially skilled and confident and secure and all that are all personal things. Things that everyone should do.
> 
> A "pick up artist" is looking to, well, 'pick up' someone. 'pick up' generally meaning for sex. You don't go and 'pick up' girls for relationships.
> 
> Really now? Saying it's the same as cosmetics? C'mon now...


Its true that picking up girls for sex versus relationships are different things, but some of the techniques overlap.

It's also true that being confident and secure with yourself are personal things that all people should want to do to improve themselves, but there's a huge difference between talking to your buddies and talking to women. Sure you can be confident and hold your head high, which will attract women, but if you don't know how to move things forward, you won't get anywhere.

Me, personally, I've never used pua techs intentionally. I've always done my own thing, but a lot of the things taught by puas are things I do naturally.

Anyone who says talking to a woman you're interested in is the same as talking to anyone else clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. Being social is a LEARNED skill, not an inherent one.

Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Wh1zkey said:


> I hate the pick-up artist term, though my couple buddies and I get labeled as one. To us, we assume that women love sex but too afraid to show it since they might be labeled as sluts. So we help beautiful women like you out there by helping them open up to us and let ourselves take it from there, satisfying both of our needs. Win-win situation. No feelings harmed.


I really can't agree with that; it's faulty thinking to assume women want sex but are afraid and, therefore, it is your "duty" to open them up (irrespective of means to get it).

Speaking for myself, I've only had two sexual partners. One was genuine, the other was from a guy that possibly held that thinking. Never had I felt so used.

That's why I despise douchebags (Pua, cheaters, immature boys, etc.) and will never let myself be burned again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... Nah.

Haha, not sure about "beautiful", but stupid, yeah definitely.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

I would say that it is the sort of activity that (probably) only very dull, bored people would get involved in, but there is not really anything that I find morally wrong about it, unless we are talking about rape, but I gather that PUA is just about persuading people to have sex and not about forcing them to have sex. Or have I not been properly informed?



DarkWolf said:


> Treating something so natural as a game is just irritating.


I reckon that you'd not like Wittgenstein's philosophy; all that talk about 'language games'.


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

XO Skeleton said:


> Anyone who says talking to a woman you're interested in is the same as talking to anyone else clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.


Because the difference for you is that you're interested in getting in her pants.


----------



## peabrane (Nov 1, 2009)

Nothing wrong with it as long as no false promises are made. And if there are... well. It makes the pickuper a dick, but they can't really be blamed for the pickupee's choice to put that much trust in a total stranger.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

It does make me think that what comss to mind is an insulting thought to women as if they need defending, that they cant make decisions about whom they sleep with. If a woman is receptive to the things PUAs do, that's her bsuiness and its not my place to say its wrong simply because I dont agree with the kind of courting that taken place. Its not so romantic but I dont think the reality of most encounters is anything except lust or loneliness.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Wh1zkey said:


> I hate the pick-up artist term, though my couple buddies and I get labeled as one. To us, we assume that women love sex but too afraid to show it since they might be labeled as sluts. So we help beautiful women like you out there by helping them open up to us and let ourselves take it from there, satisfying both of our needs. Win-win situation. No feelings harmed.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Wellsy said:


> It does make me think that what comss to mind is an insulting thought to women as if they need defending, that they cant make decisions about whom they sleep with. If a woman is receptive to the things PUAs do, that's her bsuiness and its not my place to say its wrong simply because I dont agree with the kind of courting that taken place. Its not so romantic but I dont think the reality of most encounters is anything except lust or loneliness.


It really is the stupidity of the (unaware) woman that put herself in that setup. However, for an unsuspecting woman, PUA exploits her vulnerabilities. 

Say you're a stranger who walks up to a lone child in a park and asks the child to help you find your lost puppy. What will the child do? It's not a fair game.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VeraH said:


> PUA tends to not be as successful on tamer girls where opposing values don't gel. Though I've seen some of these tamer girls get sucked in, but they also tend to be needy, insecure, emotionally under-developed. It works on promiscuous girls a breeze.
> 
> PUA will never score you the integrous girl since PU"A" is not integrous himself. Or rather, PUA (the ones I've met at least) really doesn't deserve an integrous girl.


You are making this up aren't you? How can you even measure this? There's not even a standard to measure promiscuity. For you it may be a woman having a one night stand. Period. Does it matter how often per year? For someone else it's having more than one partner within a certain timespan. Some people would say that you are not virtuous because you are not married yet. 

Mind you, statistically speaking you are deceived by half of your sexual partners. 

I don't think you can give me one reason why this would work better on promiscuous women. I can argue that the women that I know and have known, who are sexually assertive, usually scare the shit out of these folks, (they need to be in control) I have often witnessed this much to my amusement I must say. They don't buy that crap.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

double post, thought the former got lost when submitting...then wrote it again.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

mimesis said:


> You are making this up aren't you?
> 
> How can you measure this? There's not even a standard to determine promiscuity. For you it may be having a one night stand. Period. Does it matter how often, and how many partners or timespan? There are people who see your sexual behavior as vicious, because you are not married yet.
> 
> ...


lol, no, I'm not. I make my comments/opinions/assertions based on my experiences and observations. And you on yours. Whether or not they're "objective/accurate", I'm open to expanding on my insights and learn. As stated, I'm not that experienced, but am observant, which is just a (neutral) perspective.

You're right. Sexually assertive girls, sometimes also the "hottest", are daunting. Even I find them daunting. Sorry, to clarify, just " hot" promiscuous girls (open to just sex) like I said. PUA can do them due to similar values, not necessarily the "routine tactics". But still, he's able to "score" them. What he's doing is working, compared to the other guys that don't/can't. e.g. FWB arrangement. Actually, upon second reading, my paragraph wasn't clear. My bad. I enmeshed what I was trying to convey.

So what do you think could be a more standard definition of promiscuity? For me, I think promiscuity encompasses 1: Personal values on openness to sex, and 2: Numbers. This is the view held in my head when I describe someone as being promiscuous.

Okay, I'm not truly virtuous but I am integrous (in my view).


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

VeraH said:


> It really is the stupidity of the (unaware) woman that put herself in that setup. However, for an unsuspecting woman, PUA exploits her vulnerabilities.
> 
> Say you're a stranger who walks up to a lone child in a park and asks the child to help you find your lost puppy. What will the child do? It's not a fair game.


I shan't like to compare adult woman to the intelligence of small children. If they're being harmed then one should helped but here they do as they want. If I was to impose my values onto them I imagine they likely get shitty. If I found someone attractive and someone was telling me no that persons nasty I dont think id much care for their opinion as their value judgments dont choose who I partner with. 
If im to take the stance you're recommending, id be like a parent trying to force their child to choose someone I deem suitable against their own attractions. If im to respect a womans choice of partner, then im to respect her decision regardless of my opinion of those she chooses.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

marked174 said:


> What's so wrong about PUAs?


Because it demeans human relationships. I value authentic communication and relationships. I don't see women as objects to 'win' or merely objects to sleep with.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Good post. Reminds me of Mean Girls:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually used to use that word, even if I didn't mean it offensively... To me it just means someone who has a lot of sex with a lot of people (regardless of sex and gender), which isn't really a bad thing... people have different needs/desire, but recently I started using the term "freelover" and it generates more positive reactions c:


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VeraH said:


> lol, no, I'm not. I make my comments/opinions/assertions based on my experiences and observations. And you on yours. Whether or not they're "objective/accurate", I'm open to expanding on my insights and learn. As stated, I'm not that experienced, but am observant, which is just a (neutral) perspective.
> 
> You're right. Sexually assertive girls, sometimes also the "hottest", are daunting. Even I find them daunting. Sorry, to clarify, just " hot" promiscuous girls (open to just sex) like I said. PUA can do them due to similar values, not necessarily the "routine tactics". But still, he's able to "score" them. What he's doing is working, compared to the other guys that don't/can't. e.g. FWB arrangement. Actually, upon second reading, my paragraph wasn't clear. My bad. I enmeshed what I was trying to convey.
> 
> ...


I would dare to make the assertion that wearing a good ol' fashioned chastity belt, is probably the best protection against mean spirits. Stay home, lock your door, drink one glass of milk and honey a day, and set in a commission of wise men and women to judge your future spouse. 

Not sure if it leads to happiness, but technically self-actualization is possible provided you share those values. After all, some women were able to find happiness despite sexual repression.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

mimesis said:


> I would dare to make the assertion that wearing a good ol' fashioned chastity belt, is probably the best protection against mean spirits. Stay home, lock your door, drink one glass of milk and honey a day, and set in a commission of wise men and women to judge your future spouse.
> 
> Not sure if it leads to happiness, but technically self-actualization is possible provided you share those values. After all, some women were able to find happiness despite sexual repression.


You know what? I wish I had, but I didn't have anyone guide me growing up, and at first, I tried to follow the values of current culture, which I find has been damaging to my happiness. I do realize this now.

If I ever have a daughter in the future, that's what I'll be advising.

You're a wise guy. Thanks.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VeraH said:


> You know what? I wish I had, but I didn't have anyone guide me growing up, and at first, I tried to follow the values of current culture, which I find has been damaging to my happiness. I do realize this now.
> 
> If I ever have a daughter in the future, that's what I'll be advising.
> 
> You're a wise guy. Thanks.


A chastity belt? I believe they are still sold as a BDSM fetish. 

For sure we need to learn our children not to be manipulated by media and peer pressure.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

SuburbanLurker said:


> My biggest problem with PUA culture is that it actually works. This creates a serious feeling of cognitive dissonance in my head, because for the longest time I was a hopeless romantic/idealist when it came to love, and I don't want to believe that a significant portion of the female population is really that easy, naive, shallow and prone to manipulation. Integrity is one of, if not the most important quality I look for in a partner, and PUA culture is the antithesis of integrity (for both parties).
> 
> This initiates a baseline lack of trust whenever I meet someone new or enter into a relationship, and while I don't think this is healthy, I also don't think it can be avoided. I know that not _all_ women are prone to these tactics, but there is really no way to find out until you have already spent a great deal of time and effort getting to know someone.



Poor beliefs you have. Women are not special, they're normal human beings who also like sex like us and sometimes just want to get railed into the next dimension.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

A great article that talks directly about this topic: The Trouble With Pick-Up Artists | Paging Dr. NerdLove

Main points are: There's nothing wrong with wanting to get better with women, but there are different ways to go about it. Some ways are "wrong" and some are "right." 

Nonetheless, the ways that encourage manipulation, being a dick, etc. won't actually help you or get you laid. The problem with traditional PUA is that it's a waste of time because the "techniques" it teaches you are pretty stupid and generally ineffective


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

mimesis said:


> A chastity belt? I believe they are still sold as a BDSM fetish.
> 
> For sure we need to learn our children not to be manipulated by media and peer pressure.


Yes, we do. I said "advise" not "enforce". 

But I would prefer it that way. 100% safe; I wouldn't have to worry. And lol, if that becomes a hypothetical trend, ever (not), promiscuous guys would be shitting themselves or relieving themselves with sock and petroleum jelly.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VeraH said:


> Yes, we do. I said "advise" not "enforce".
> 
> But I would prefer it that way. 100% safe; I wouldn't have to worry. And lol, if that becomes a hypothetical trend, ever (not), promiscuous guys would be shitting themselves or relieving themselves with sock and petroleum jelly.


It would be useless if you also hand her the key, wouldn't it? But...I just checked and saw they also come in male versions! We are making progress.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Villainous said:


> A great article that talks directly about this topic: The Trouble With Pick-Up Artists | Paging Dr. NerdLove
> 
> Main points are: There's nothing wrong with wanting to get better with women, but there are different ways to go about it. Some ways are "wrong" and some are "right."
> 
> Nonetheless, the ways that encourage manipulation, being a dick, etc. won't actually help you or get you laid. The problem with traditional PUA is that it's a waste of time because the "techniques" it teaches you are pretty stupid and generally ineffective


Well some things can work. Should I 'forget' to hold the door for a woman, chances are I like her. Oops, sorry, I didn't see you! 

But I did try courtesy (and still do). It's appreciated, as 'kind' not as a 'challenge'. No opportunity for growth, so to speak. I found out by chance, because I didn't (and still don't) always have a presence of mind, lol.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

I see nothing wrong with PUAs. I'm sure there is an equal and/or inverted female equivalent.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Cetanu said:


> I see nothing wrong with PUAs. I'm sure there is an equal and/or inverted female equivalent.


Of course. Women are raised learning how to manipulate, and, they're FAR better at it than men. They've been doing it for centuries. Cosmo teaches them on a monthly basis. Soap operas do it on the daily. Social conventions teach them how snag or capture the successful ones.

You think women didn't get what they wanted before they ever got voting rights or equal pay? Pfff... they have us so wrapped up that most of you will never EVER see in your life their true power.

Influence isn't had through money, politics, or force. It's had through emotional manipulation

Men learn how to manipulate environments while women learn how to manipulate men (or people in general). PUA is an attempt (though in IMO a misguided one) to even the playing field and that's why women don't like it, they want to keep the upper hand. And they probably won't realize on a conscious level.

Girls need to GTFO with their bullshit saying men manipulate women because they do it far more.

Nontheless, manipulation is not necessarily a bad thing despite the negative connotation. It's just simply how our brains work. Every time you give someone a compliment (even if it's genuine), you're manipulating them. Every time you take a shower to be presentable, you're manipulating others. People on here saying that PUA is manipulative is trying to manipulate you. When you say please and thank you, that's manipulation. Get over it


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Don't look into her eyes! Hypnotist shows women how to manipulate men using mind tricks without them even knowing | Mail Online


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Villainous said:


> Don't look into her eyes! Hypnotist shows women how to manipulate men using mind tricks without them even knowing | Mail Online



Is that what this all boils down to--equalizing the sides in sexual warfare?


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

android654 said:


> Is that what this all boils down to--equalizing the sides in sexual warfare?


Don't you think they should be?


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

mimesis said:


> It would be useless if you also hand her the key, wouldn't it? But...I just checked and saw they also come in male versions! We are making progress.


Genuine questions: having stated that you were once promiscuous, honestly, when you were more ready to settle at 26, did you still seek a girl that did FWB's but was willing to commit too? Actually, what qualities did you look out for? 

Second: @mimesis, so if you ever have a daughter, what would you advise? If a guy who was a mirror image to you in your "fun" days approached her, how would you approach the situation? Now, what if a PUA eyed your pretty little princess? 

And no, I won't have the metaphorical key in my grip. Though if I did, I would be more willing to hand it over when she's informed enough to make her own decisions, which I wasn't.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Cetanu said:


> Don't you think they should be?



I think people shouldn't be so petty.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Villainous said:


> Men learn how to manipulate environments while women learn how to manipulate men (or people in general). PUA is an attempt (though in IMO a misguided one) to even the playing field and that's why women don't like it, they want to keep the upper hand. And they probably won't realize on a conscious level.
> 
> Girls need to GTFO with their bullshit saying men manipulate women because they do it far more.


Some women have naturally good game and can draw men in, to select a (best) mate genuinely. The risk is making a "wrong" decision. Firstly, men are visual creatures and women are beautiful to look at. (Though please don't ogle!) Secondly, women are "soft" and *feminine*. How comforting. Plus so much more.

Then, there are the wicked women: the cocktease and user. All done for her ego-trip or for personal gain. I think this may be closest to an equivalent female-"PUA". So... PUA makes it fair? 

You make a good point. Though I still don't agree with PUA because it's so. damn. *intentional*. Nevertheless, I don't agree with cockteases either. "Users" suck. Period. 

But I think you're right; women do have the upperhand. If it becomes the reverse, however,I feel men only want the upperhand to not feel rejected. For men, the risk is rejection. Is this true? If so, that's very different as to why women have the upperhand: to select the best mate. Men select by approaching, if he's a good catch, there you go. PUA exploits this. Though it's fucked up. That woman could have been genuine whereas PUA was not. Difference.

p.s. PUA/douchebag/jerk/abuser are the *most wrong* decisions to make. I really do hope more women can become aware of it.



> Nontheless, manipulation is not necessarily a bad thing despite the negative connotation. It's just simply how our brains work. Every time you give someone a compliment (even if it's genuine), you're manipulating them. Every time you take a shower to be presentable, you're manipulating others. People on here saying that PUA is manipulative is trying to manipulate you. When you say please and thank you, that's manipulation. Get over it


Yes, but it's manipulation to get others to like/accept you, for courtesy, to protect your ego in the public environment. To exist cordially in the public sphere. Not everyone is a narcissist/self-serving (e.g. PU"A", cocktease, user).


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> Some women have naturally good game and can draw men in, to select a (best) mate genuinely. The risk is making a "wrong" decision. Firstly, men are visual creatures and women are beautiful to look at. (Though please don't ogle!) Secondly, women are "soft" and *feminine*. How comforting. Plus so much more.
> 
> Then, there are the wicked women: the cocktease and user. All done for her ego-trip or for personal gain. I think this may be closest to an equivalent female-"PUA". So... PUA makes it fair?
> 
> ...


Rejection is nothing, it's never over! Rejection is like failure it's natural, but it's not the end. I'd like to see a guy with a 100% rate with women bowing to his every command, just doesn't happen. There's no "upperhand" it goes both ways. It's all in your head. Can't really control the outcome, all you can do as a man is just be you & see what happens.

It's not a science, it's art & involves emotions. It's not like a math equation where you input numbers to get a specific result. Of course it's intentional, a person can't go half-ass towards anything & expect good results.

Ultimately, men has always approached women throughout history... There are guys who let beautiful women walk by & regret doing nothing & those who open to see where it goes.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

MisterD said:


> I'd like to see a guy with a 100% rate with women bowing to his every command, just doesn't happen.


Then get a dog. Or buy a slave if you can traffick one. 

I have yet to know of any woman who desires to have a guy "bowing to [her] every command. She (nicer, genuine, woman) just wants a decent, well-rounded, and committed guy.



> There's no "upperhand" it goes both ways. It's all in your head. Can't really control the outcome, all you can do as a man is just be you & see what happens.


Be the *best* you " possible, see if anything changes. Do things for you, first. As in personal development. You don't like desperate, clingy girls, sitting around with nothing going on in her life but you. So why would a woman want that in a guy? 



> It's not a science, it's art & involves emotions. It's not like a math equation where you input numbers to get a specific result. Of course it's intentional, a person can't go half-ass towards anything & expect good results.


PU is NOT art. It's manipulation with intent to deceive for the man's gain (be it preventing rejection), though does it stop there or does the guy become the inevitable douchebag? 



> Ultimately, men has always approached women throughout history... There are guys who let beautiful women walk by & regret doing nothing & those who open to see where it goes.


Okay, let's say everyone has a numerical value assigned to them (I know, I know, please bear with me). If you're a 3 (looks and innards combined, where a shit personality/ability/ambition/qualities can drag down your score), why would it be logical to approach a "7” where the risk of rejection is high? 

Superficiality aside, if you're not that "developed", why would someone who is more "developed" choose you over someone of similar "developed-ness"? 

That said, "beta"/"normal" guys are so much more than they credit themselves. That said, don't go around thinking that you're the shit. No need to get suckered into PUA.

At the end of the day, to each his/her own.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> Then get a dog. Or buy a slave if you can traffick one.
> 
> I have yet to know of any woman who desires to have a guy "bowing to [her] every command. She (nicer, genuine, woman) just wants a decent and committed guy.
> 
> ...


"bow to every command" at a lack for words.. meaning a women that complies & agrees to everything a man says. Did you really take it that literally, wow.

Doesn't matter if you're a guy that's a 1 he should still shoot & try for a 10.... Or he can live his life with regret, not knowing. Rejection means nothing, everyone fails. Life isn't easy & it's a natural part of life, just like failure. It's not logical... I have guy friends that aren't the best looking, that have really beautiful women as wives/girlfriends/FWB.

Don't see what's wrong with "thinking you're the shit." I promote it & wish that every person thought like that. It's only when someone puts others down in the process that it becomes negative. People should be confident in themselves & not afraid to be themselves to their fullest extent. 

"Beta/normal" guys doesn't really make sense. It's just a guy. When people refer to guys as beta's & alpha's it makes no sense. Do you even know how pack mentality works? Every guy is a beta to their parents until they break off & get married themselves, then they become alpha. They don't win a role as leader of the pack. The younger offspring don't "overthrow" the parents or have a higher sense of rank/dominance... They simply break off and become alphas "parents" themselves. They do display social dominance but that isn't what alpha/beta is.

It sounds like you have some kind of beta>alpha complex.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

MisterD said:


> "bow to every command" at a lack for words.. meaning a women that complies & agrees to everything a man says. Did you really take it that literally, wow.
> 
> Doesn't matter if you're a guy that's a 1 he should still shoot & try for a 10.... Or he can live his life with regret, not knowing. Rejection means nothing, everyone fails. Life isn't easy & it's a natural part of life, just like failure. It's not logical... I have guy friends that aren't the best looking, that have really beautiful women as wives/girlfriends/FWB.
> 
> ...


haha, no... I did not take it literally. I knew what you meant. My comment for it, and to your new comment, remains.

and lol, no... I do not have a beta/alpha "complex", this thread happens to be on PUA. It's just convenient for referencing as people tend to get the "gist" of whom is being referred to, or the "kind of/type of" guy.

Exactly, a guy is a guy is a guy. A girl is a girl is a girl. But people are variable. Period.

Confidence is sought from everyone. But when a guy thinks he's the shit (meaning being arogant) then he's an annoying POS and rejection should not come by as a surprise. A "1” approaching/"catching" a "10" isn't a "1” then. Im not referring to a looks scale...


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Eh, last time I checked, manipulative women like gold diggers or whatever that tricks men into relationships or whatever are criticized morally. And the kind of arguments that "oh women are also manipulative" is pointless, since when is the "oh we are wrong but so are they" solve anything?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VeraH said:


> Genuine questions: having stated that you were once promiscuous, honestly, when you were more ready to settle at 26, did you still seek a girl that did FWB's but was willing to commit too? Actually, what qualities did you look out for?


My genuine answer.

Believe it or not but I used to pursue an idealized romantic relationship, and I had a relationship from 20-22. She was intelligent and idealistic like me, and she was assertive, sexy, and had the looks of a model and we fell passionately in love. This was what I had longed for, for so long, so what could possibly go wrong, right? Well, just about everything. It was very intense, but we could make or break each other, and we did both, because we couldn't control our passion, and didn't know how to set and protect our boundaries. The only guidance we had were basically rooted in teenage fantasy. We'd put each other on pedestals, because it feels so fucking good to be you or be 'us', but couldn't deal with reality checks, and didn't know how to make it work. Never even thought of a relationship as something you need to work on, rather than fight for (which had a more dramatic romantic edge), or claim entitlements. It was a mess, becoming more neurotic along the way, ending in sort of a burn out. But when we broke up, I still had no clue why it went wrong, but it proved I was not ready for love, which was pretty hard to accept, when you had looked out for it so long. I had serious issues to deal with. 

My promiscuity was part of readjusting my values and ideals, but grounded in reality this time. I knew nothing about women. I had girlfriends before, and some one night stands. But I always compared them with some ideal woman in my mind, like a collage or assemblage of introjections from any kind of source. I was trying to get as close as I could to this ideal, similar to other ambitions which all together converged in my pursuit of happiness. And this romantic ideal was a significant part, so it was a significant delusion to break up. Anyway, I changed strategy and attitude, and rather than seeking (and projecting) an ideal, I was open to practically any kind of woman who wanted me. Which was a lot more than I expected. Actually before I was so self-conscious and self-focused that I didn't even notice it, because I was kind of obsessed with what was 'above my grade', unaware that this only nurtured feelings of inadequacy. 

So I dropped the ideal, and now I was curious to find unique beauty in every woman, or any person for that matter. In her looks and character. I sort of fell in love with womanhood at large, lol. I wasn't interested so much in what was more beautiful but what was also beautiful, and appreciating the difference. I also reflected on my past relationship, and observed (and discussed) other relations, to either identify the same flaws, and traps we fell in, or be inspired by alternative ways of dealing with those. An important change was shifting gravitation from 'model' to 'matey', although they don't rule each other out. It's hard to exactly describe what I was looking for, because I wasn't 'looking' anymore. It needed to match with me, with the person I was. Someone to get dirty with or team up with, more tom-boyish type rather than the 'princess' to take to a restaurant in a beautiful dress. When I felt ready I didn't need to wait long to find someone, or to be found, to be more accurate. I was a bit reserved at first, because she clearly had a strong crush on me (which was a reason not to have casual sex), and was also a good friend of friends of mine, and kind of a wild girl. Or lively, boisterous and volatile. Not sure what's the right word. Probably all of them do, heh. Anyway, I didn't want to risk any 'complicated situations' needlessly, but I decided it had a chance. 




VeraH said:


> Second: @_mimesis_, so if you ever have a daughter, what would you advise? If a guy who was a mirror image to you in your "fun" days approached her, how would you approach the situation? Now, what if a PUA eyed your pretty little princess?


I would raise her to learn to take responsibility for herself. Which also includes to make mistakes.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

mimesis said:


> An important change was shifting focus from 'model' to 'matey', although they don't rule each other out. It's hard to exactly describe what I was looking for, because I wasn't 'looking' anymore. It needed to match with me, with the person I was. Someone to get dirty with or team up with, more tom-boyish type rather than the 'princess' to take to a restaurant in a beautiful dress.


IMO, this is an important realization about relationships, that we can move on from idealism and putting our crushes on pedestals to actually have relationships and see them for what they are. I used to dream about "knights" when I was younger and idealized love, but I realized too that it's more about finding a partner in life.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

VeraH said:


> Then get a dog. Or buy a slave if you can traffick one.
> 
> I have yet to know of any woman who desires to have a guy "bowing to [her] every command. She (nicer, genuine, woman) just wants a decent, well-rounded, and committed guy.
> 
> ...


It's actually the woman who is more inclined to date either bigger, stronger, smarter, richer, higher social status, more talented, more succesful, etc. to the extend that since women some years ago have become higher educated on average, a new term was introduced, 'down-dating'. Just a random google result.



Down Dating said:


> I was having a drink with a friend the other night and we were talking about how, naturally, if you're an intelligent woman, the pool of men who are your intellectual equals is small. Does this mean women must resort to "dating down," in an intellectual sense? And does that really even matter?
> "Dating Down" -- Do You Need Your Partner To Be As Smart As You? | xoJane


So this clearly is a relevant issue, and a new word was introduced to identify the discours. I am a bit puzzled how this basic preference (to be equal or more than her) has slipped from your awareness, when you try to teach guys a moral lesson here, to aim for someone equal. (I can see the historical and even biological perspective, but that is no reason for selective amnesia)


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

android654 said:


> Is that what this all boils down to--equalizing the sides in sexual warfare?


Sadly, yes. Though there are still people who don't see it as warfare. I wish things were less men VS. women and more men AND women.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

VeraH said:


> You make a good point. Though I still don't agree with PUA because it's so. damn. *intentional*.
> 
> Men select by approaching, if he's a good catch, there you go. PUA exploits this. Though it's fucked up. That woman could have been genuine whereas PUA was not. Difference.


A bit confusing. I hope you're not implying that if a man chooses to approach a specific woman that it's disingenuous. Personally, I think both genders should be more *intentional* in the people they choose to spend their time with.



> Yes, but it's manipulation to get others to like/accept you, for courtesy, to protect your ego in the public environment.


Most guys get into pick up for the same reasons, they just want more success with women. It's the techniques that pick up artistry teaches which tend to make them disingenuous. And yes, a lot of the guys just want to get laid.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with men who just want to have more sex. It's within their right as a human and the most sexual creature on the planet. I just believe they should be more honest about what they want (and they'd be surprised at how many women want the same thing when they're not surrounded by social pressure). 

PUA can sometimes be a good alternative (at least the modern incarnations which have ditched all techniques and teach certain principles and a "natural" style) as it teaches men to be clear about their intentions whereas w/o pick up most guys grow up learning they should be nice or rich to get women. Now that's manipulation. I find nothing more disturbing than guys being nice as a strategy to get sex. Better to be a little more direct about what they want

Men may try to manipulate to get sex, but women withhold sex as manipulation to get other things they want.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Eh, last time I checked, manipulative women like gold diggers or whatever that tricks men into relationships or whatever are criticized morally. And the kind of arguments that "oh women are also manipulative" is pointless, since when is the "oh we are wrong but so are they" solve anything?


Those are the obvious manipulators. Most women are more discreet and are not criticized. For example, women that withhold sex as a way to get their man to do house chores. LOTS of women do this ALL the time with no criticism. Mostly because men don't even know that's what's going on. Even many women do know they're doing this as is has become so natural and subconscious to them. Gold diggers are only criticized because men know what's going on. If they didn't, you can bet sure as hell other women would not rush to point out how they take advantage of men.

And, since always. Pointing out the flaws in both sides has frequently lead to more improvements than continuing to bicker which side is correct


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Villainous said:


> Poor beliefs you have. Women are not special, they're normal human beings who also like sex like us and sometimes just want to get railed into the next dimension.


What does that have to do with being naive, easy to manipulate and shallow? How does having integrity relate to being special?

Besides, I've known plenty of girls who were completely open and honest about their desire for sex. They've all been the type to laugh in the face of PUA artists. It's the ones who don't know how to be honest (both with themselves and others) that seem to fall for the tricks.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> Eh, last time I checked, manipulative women like gold diggers or whatever that tricks men into relationships or whatever are criticized morally. And the kind of arguments that "oh women are also manipulative" is pointless, since when is the "oh we are wrong but so are they" solve anything?


Actually, this is one of the rare times that argument actually works. If women are as manipulative as PUAs, then why do people hate PUAs more than they do manipulative women? The answer to that question might lead to some insights.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

mimesis said:


> My genuine answer.
> 
> Believe it or not but I used to pursue an idealized romantic relationship, and I had a relationship from 20-22. She was intelligent and idealistic like me, and she was assertive, sexy, and had the looks of a model and we fell passionately in love. This was what I had longed for, for so long, so what could possibly go wrong, right? Well, just about everything. It was very intense, but we could make or break each other, and we did both, because we couldn't control our passion, and didn't know how to set and protect our boundaries. The only guidance we had were basically rooted in teenage fantasy. We'd put each other on pedestals, because it feels so fucking good to be you or be 'us', but couldn't deal with reality checks, and didn't know how to make it work. Never even thought of a relationship as something you need to work on, rather than fight for (which had a more dramatic romantic edge), or claim entitlements. It was a mess, becoming more neurotic along the way, ending in sort of a burn out. But when we broke up, I still had no clue why it went wrong, but it proved I was not ready for love, which was pretty hard to accept, when you had looked out for it so long. I had serious issues to deal with.
> 
> ...


passion & romance is thrilling.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> IMO, this is an important realization about relationships, that we can move on from idealism and putting our crushes on pedestals to actually have relationships and see them for what they are. I used to dream about "knights" when I was younger and idealized love, but I realized too that it's more about finding a partner in life.


please... I live for idealism.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

mimesis said:


> My genuine answer.


That's quite a fair bit lol. Thanks for sharing.

I can see our values are very different. And here's the thing: our experiences are very different. I feel neither is "wrong" nor more "right". 

When you were more *ready* to settle again, you looked for a relationship of friendship instead of just sex. This what I've been referring to and have been not as fortunate to find. However, you didn't say anywhere you mislead those women whereas the ones I've come across (especially the one that stung me) have either: 1) tried to or 2) not share my value and see me as a "passing" (where I think I "idealized" for something permanent and him, not. He knew this, but didn't care.)

I still don't think I'm "idealizing" when I'm looking (not intently now) for something more long-lasting and permanent. I'm a strong emotional-bonder. I can't stand on the surface type relations. Which I perceive you have adopted, prior to what you've found now, possibly. But you're not the douchebag, it seems. Anyway. That's why I dismiss promiscuous guys. I'm scared you view sex as just an activity. I do too, now. I struggle to place my trust in guys that just do sex so I turn my head the other way. 



> I would raise her to learn to take responsibility for herself. Which also includes to make mistakes.


Again, to each his/her own. I would prevent harm any way I could, though agreed, the responsibility is her bearing.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

MisterD said:


> please... I live for idealism.


You are going to project your values onto her, and will inevitably be dissappointed.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> You are going to project your values onto her, and will inevitably be dissappointed.


Haven't been disappointed living this way so far. I'll only be disappointed if I don't live through my values.

Not getting the lay isn't as important in my opinion.

I love the journey though, disappointment is part of it... I love it all.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Actually, this is one of the rare times that argument actually works. If women are as manipulative as PUAs, then why do people hate PUAs more than they do manipulative women? The answer to that question might lead to some insights.


I think I gave a reply at post #154 that touches on this.

Women (genuinely looking for a long-term relationship) tend to "manipulate" (moreso, just natural game) to create more opportunity for *selection* of the top mate. Her risk is a "wrong/poor" selection to be a long-term partner. Men "select" by approaching (intentional choosing of) the woman he wants. His risk is rejection.

The woman has the bigger risk imo.

PUA = user = manipulator = gold-digger = cocktease.

I see them all as the same breed.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Men take the same risk. If I choose the wrong partner, I will definitely pay for it. So where is the distinction?


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

android654 said:


> I think people shouldn't be so petty.


I agree, but they are, so what now?



VeraH said:


> I think I gave a reply at post #154 that touches on this.
> 
> Women (genuinely looking for a long-term relationship) tend to "manipulate" (moreso, just natural game) to create more opportunity for *selection* of the top mate. Her risk is a "wrong/poor" selection to be a long-term partner. Men "select" by approaching (intentional choosing of) the woman he wants. His risk is rejection.
> 
> ...


The risks you talk about are hardly risks.
Rejection? Picking the 'wrong' guy?
Laughable risks. Seriously, there is NOTHING being risked there. What, your mental health or something?

I would say the actual risks when it comes to relationships are:
Women: pairing up with a man who abuses(emotionally, physically) you later on
Men: pairing up with a woman who abuses(emotionally, financially, physically) you later on

But then again, am I an expert? Fuck no.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Cetanu said:


> What, your mental health or something?


Excuse me? As in, am I mentally ill? If that's your Q, then yes, though it does not mean I lack intelligence nor ability to function/think. Thanks for being ignorant.



> I would say the actual risks when it comes to relationships are:
> Women: pairing up with a man who abuses(emotionally, physically) you later on
> Men: pairing up with a woman who abuses(emotionally, financially, physically) you later on


In your example:
The risk for that woman would have been selecting the wrong partner.
The risk for that man would have been selecting the wrong partner. You're right; though he had the option to intentially select when approaching the person of choice where a there is a risk for rejection. (Which is what I opine that you object to)



> But then again, am I an expert? Fuck no.


Same; I've openly made admission that I'm not.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

VeraH said:


> Excuse me? As in, am I mentally ill? If that's your Q, then yes, though it does not mean I lack intelligence nor ability to function/think. Thanks for being ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't speak about your mental health. I suggested that the risks you present are pertaining to the persons mental health, as in, they could become embarrassed by rejection, thus damaging their self-esteem, etc. My statement indicates that I think that it is ridiculous that a person could become mentally damaged from rejection (a risk means there is some potential loss, if there is no potential for loss or damage, it is by definition not a risk)

Men and women both have the capability to intentionally select their partners. It's not a male only thing. Most women simply refuse to approach any potential partners for some archaic and/or irrational reason.

Thanks for being unnecessarily rude.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Villainous said:


> Those are the obvious manipulators. Most women are more discreet and are not criticized. For example, women that withhold sex as a way to get their man to do house chores. LOTS of women do this ALL the time with no criticism. Mostly because men don't even know that's what's going on. Even many women do know they're doing this as is has become so natural and subconscious to them. Gold diggers are only criticized because men know what's going on. If they didn't, you can bet sure as hell other women would not rush to point out how they take advantage of men.


Women "withholding sex" is one of the common issues in long term relationships especially marriages, thought what many probably doesn't understand is that it's often not simply about manipulation. Often it is coz attraction is lost while resentment and lack of respect is built, and the couple didn't know how to deal with the issues that caused the resentments. For example, sometimes there can be a mismatch in compatibility so that the "withholder's" need (like emotional needs for example - emotional support, bond, understanding, you name it) are not really satisfied... Or the couple might often be arguing, fighting...
And then there is also the cases in which one of the partners' sex drive changed, yet it caused resentment or lack of understanding...
Also, sometimes one party might not be happy and tries to express it to the other person, yet she does not know how to communicate effectively (maybe instead of talking she was too emotional or blames instead of expressing how she feels); or the other person doesn't know how to communicate effectively as well, might misunderstand, or simply sweep things under the carpet since everything is alright on his side - and then gets taken by surprise when sex finally disappears.
And then there are also cases in which the man in the relationship would try to do housework in order to have sex life back, thought of course that mostly doesn't work, as what's lost is more than just sex (what's lost is attration and bond); and then when you do that, the other person can sense that and think that he only wants sex and not coming from genuine care (the typical "you only care when sex is gone!"). Many women might actually want to see if their men would put effort in winning her back yet by having them do houseworks or whatever too, but that's not what brings back closeness and attraction, and respect. On the other hand, women often doesn't realize that sex is not just about sex for men, physical intimacy is more than just sexual release.

Anyways, I guess that I wrote a lot about this, thought I wanted to talk about this since I get the feeling that this issue is often misunderstood and simply seen as a form of manipulation. If you are curious about this issue, you can check some of the marriage forums online.



Villainous said:


> And, since always. Pointing out the flaws in both sides has frequently lead to more improvements than continuing to bicker which side is correct


Theoretically it should help both sides to know what to improve, thought practically speaking, focusing on such often creates hate/blame war rather than help us realize what/how to improve. IMO, it's better to be empathetic and understanding, thought it's often harder to do it (I confess that I'm also guilty of being critical and lack of empathy sometimes).


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Actually, this is one of the rare times that argument actually works. If women are as manipulative as PUAs, then why do people hate PUAs more than they do manipulative women? The answer to that question might lead to some insights.


Honestly I don't notice more hate towards PUA men than manipulative women, thought maybe that might seem so due to more threads focusing on PUA stuffs. Guess criticizing gold diggers or women overdoing their looks got boring.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

10 Cruel things women do to men - The Times of India


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> Women "withholding sex" is one of the common issues in long term relationships especially marriages, thought what many probably doesn't understand is that it's often not simply about manipulation. Often it is coz attraction is lost while resentment and lack of respect is built, and the couple didn't know how to deal with the issues that caused the resentments. For example, sometimes there can be a mismatch in compatibility so that the "withholder's" need (like emotional needs for example - emotional support, bond, understanding, you name it) are not really satisfied... Or the couple might often be arguing, fighting...
> And then there is also the cases in which one of the partners' sex drive changed, yet it caused resentment or lack of understanding...
> Also, sometimes one party might not be happy and tries to express it to the other person, yet she does not know how to communicate effectively (maybe instead of talking she was too emotional or blames instead of expressing how she feels); or the other person doesn't know how to communicate effectively as well, might misunderstand, or simply sweep things under the carpet since everything is alright on his side - and then gets taken by surprise when sex finally disappears.
> And then there are also cases in which the man in the relationship would try to do housework in order to have sex life back, thought of course that mostly doesn't work, as what's lost is more than just sex (what's lost is attration and bond); and then when you do that, the other person can sense that and think that he only wants sex and not coming from genuine care (the typical "you only care when sex is gone!"). Many women might actually want to see if their men would put effort in winning her back yet by having them do houseworks or whatever too, but that's not what brings back closeness and attraction, and respect. On the other hand, women often doesn't realize that sex is not just about sex for men, physical intimacy is more than just sexual release.
> ...


Rapists are also complex and misunderstood too, but I'm not going to try to defend or explain their behavior. If I did, I would receive more hate then you could possibly imagine. The fact that you can voice your opinion on woman's manipulation motivations speaks in great extent to your female privilege.

It's not a "bad" post, however; given that the nature of this conversation has largely been that manipulation is depraved, vile, and wrong; unless of course, you are a woman.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

In a way, I find it kind of funny when women say men shouldn't learn PUA because it's manipulative as if they believe that women are easily manipulated. Could even say that's a little misogynistic, believing women are inferior and easy to manipulate


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Women "withholding sex" is one of the common issues in long term relationships especially marriages, thought what many probably doesn't understand is that it's often not simply about manipulation. Often it is coz attraction is lost while resentment and lack of respect is built, and the couple didn't know how to deal with the issues that caused the resentments. For example, sometimes there can be a mismatch in compatibility so that the "withholder's" need (like emotional needs for example - emotional support, bond, understanding, you name it) are not really satisfied... Or the couple might often be arguing, fighting...
> And then there is also the cases in which one of the partners' sex drive changed, yet it caused resentment or lack of understanding...
> Also, sometimes one party might not be happy and tries to express it to the other person, yet she does not know how to communicate effectively (maybe instead of talking she was too emotional or blames instead of expressing how she feels); or the other person doesn't know how to communicate effectively as well, might misunderstand, or simply sweep things under the carpet since everything is alright on his side - and then gets taken by surprise when sex finally disappears.
> And then there are also cases in which the man in the relationship would try to do housework in order to have sex life back, thought of course that mostly doesn't work, as what's lost is more than just sex (what's lost is attration and bond); and then when you do that, the other person can sense that and think that he only wants sex and not coming from genuine care (the typical "you only care when sex is gone!"). Many women might actually want to see if their men would put effort in winning her back yet by having them do houseworks or whatever too, but that's not what brings back closeness and attraction, and respect. On the other hand, women often doesn't realize that sex is not just about sex for men, physical intimacy is more than just sexual release.
> ...


Yeah, that's a big reason too. Lose of attraction or respect definitely contribute to sexlessness. But the point is that withholding sex to manipulate men happens way more than it should and most men don't even know it's happening to them. That's pretty fucked up


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Rapists are also complex and misunderstood too, but I'm not going to try to defend or explain their behavior. If I did, I would receive more hate then you could possibly imagine. The fact that you can voice your opinion on woman's manipulation motivations speaks in great extent to your female privilege.
> 
> It's not a "bad" post, however; given that the nature of this conversation has largely been that manipulation is depraved, vile, and wrong; unless of course, you are a woman.


Because rapists and sex withholders are so comparable. :/ So if I punch someone or stab someone it would be the same vileness, since both hurts the person? So let's categorize two types of wrongs as the same vileness, since both are wrong?

And if you paid attention to what I wrote, you'd understand that I'm not exactly defending women who does indeed withhold sex in order to manipulate men. I'm rather pointing out possible dynamics behind the typical sex withholding scenarios. Do you know that many men actually withholds sex too? Or emotional care? I'm talking about male withholders too coz maybe it can make it easier to understand that there are lots of possible scenarios as to why this kind of issues happens.

As for manipulation being depraved, vile and wrong, honestly it's not as much about genders. Thought certain comparisons that have been made between in this thread are rather pointless. I've pointed out gold diggers as a comparison of PUA or whatever guys since both are similar - both lies and tricks the other in order to have sex/money/relationship/whatever. Now I don't see how can one compare makeup/looks manipulations or using "please" or "thank you" manipulations or even whithholding sex/affection in order to have the other do house works the same level of tricking someone to being used but never truly loved, while secretly seeing this used person as inferior and usable sex relief or wallet ready to be discarded after.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Villainous said:


> In a way, I find it kind of funny when women say men shouldn't learn PUA because it's manipulative as if they believe that women are easily manipulated. Could even say that's a little misogynistic, believing women are inferior and easy to manipulate


That is true, and I'd rather say that men or women shouldn't learn manipulative tricks as they should learn how to improve themselves healthily (self confidence and communication skills) rather than learning how to trick.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Rapists are also complex and misunderstood too, but I'm not going to try to defend or explain their behavior. If I did, I would receive more hate then you could possibly imagine. The fact that you can voice your opinion on woman's manipulation motivations speaks in great extent to your female privilege.
> 
> It's not a "bad" post, however; given that the nature of this conversation has largely been that manipulation is depraved, vile, and wrong; unless of course, you are a woman.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Cetanu said:


> My statement indicates that I think that it is ridiculous that a person could become mentally damaged from rejection (a risk means there is some potential loss, if there is no potential for loss or damage, it is by definition not a risk)


I see. In that case, okay. Why the need for manipulation? 



> Men and women both have the capability to intentionally select their partners. It's not a male only thing. Most women simply refuse to approach any potential partners for some archaic and/or irrational reason.


In my younger years still, I used to get into the habit of showing attention by chasing (none of it sexual, just innocent teenage crushes, I was a late bloomer) and found that I could never get a guy attracted to me. As I got older, I noticed my appearance changed and so did the male attention I was receiving. So I naturally learnt to "craft" my appeal. Though I'm not morally deficient to be a user/cocktease. I'm just looking for a good life partner who I will *choose to be of best fit* to one day father my kids (I had a physically abusive/alcoholic dad and mom). So I had to learn how I can be selective.

MOREOVER, I have worked on myself and my qualities authentically, so when a guy approaches me I get to be choosy of the one of best fit. BUT ALSO, he chooses whether or not to approach me. So I've had not-so-well-rounded guys (player-type, cheater-types, sleazy-type, immature/disrespectful boys, socially-inept guys that refuse to change and prefers playing WOW instead) approach me and I'll reject in an instant. Sorry. I'm also not an aggresive/strong-personalitied woman, I don't feel comfortable approaching. But I am much, much, much, much more drawn to a guy who approaches me, because of that "slight risk of rejection" he's taken, I think it's courageous he puts a bit of his ego at risk to approach. Makes him that much more sexy in my eyes than the guy cowering and waiting for me to approach. Though I will initiate contact if he looks "cute/sweet/nice/shy" haha, then it's up to him what he wants to do next and how he goes about it, but he never does and I don't have time to spoon-feed.

But if a girl of equivalent "low quality" approaches a guy who is well-rounded, he also has the right to be selective and reject her (by not approaching or outright respectfully rejecting her if she approaches him).

You are *not* entitled to anyone of your choosing. This applies to both women and men. Takes two to tango.

I think a guy knows of a woman's existence and takes initiative to approach. The woman only knows of the man's existence when he approaches. 

But I don't know, I'm no expert, and I'm not everyone. Disclaimer: I don't believe in "the one", though I believe there is "one" out there somewhere.



> Thanks for being unnecessarily rude.


Sorry, I misunderstood you and shouldn't have jumped/be defensive.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> Because rapists and sex withholders are so comparable. :/ So if I punch someone or stab someone it would be the same vileness, since both hurts the person? So let's categorize two types of wrongs as the same vileness, since both are wrong?


 Same? No. But if you were to analyze the motivations behind a punch or the motivations behind a stab I would expect equal treatment regarding the examination.




AriesLilith said:


> And if you paid attention to what I wrote, you'd understand that I'm not exactly defending women who does indeed withhold sex in order to manipulate men. I'm rather pointing out possible dynamics behind the typical sex withholding scenarios. Do you know that many men actually withholds sex too? Or emotional care? I'm talking about male withholders too coz maybe it can make it easier to understand that there are lots of possible scenarios as to why this kind of issues happens.


 It's not a terrible analysis, and I don't disagree with it, but it's still worthy of note that you have the privilege of being able to make it.




AriesLilith said:


> As for manipulation being depraved, vile and wrong, honestly it's not as much about genders. Thought certain comparisons that have been made between in this thread are rather pointless. I've pointed out gold diggers as a comparison of PUA or whatever guys since both are similar - both lies and tricks the other in order to have sex/money/relationship/whatever. Now I don't see how can one compare makeup/looks manipulations or using "please" or "thank you" manipulations or even whithholding sex/affection in order to have the other do house works the same level of tricking someone to being used but never truly loved, while secretly seeing this used person as inferior and usable sex relief or wallet ready to be discarded after.


 You're right. Those analogies are inferior in that specific context, especially when you consider the much more superior one: the friend zone. Girls friendzone guys and "trick them into being used, but never truly loved, while secretly seeing this used person as inferior and usable emotional relief or wallet ready to be discarded (or indefinitely retained) after."

Our society doesn't have a problem with "friendzone" manipulation either. You would think that, in an equal world, society would equally disdain manipulation, but their are very specific gender-based qualifiers. 

If PU is wrong because it presents a false front, then makeup is wrong for because it also presents a false front.
If PU is wrong because it is coercive, then withholding sex is wrong because it is also coercive.
If PU is wrong because it is callous to its target and self-serving, then friend-zoning is wrong because it is also callous to its target and is self-serving.

And yet, only PU is hated while the others are not. Why is that?


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Villainous said:


> Yeah, that's a big reason too. Lose of attraction or respect definitely contribute to sexlessness. But the point is that withholding sex to manipulate men happens way more than it should and most men don't even know it's happening to them. That's pretty fucked up


True... and honestly, I find this kind of manipulation awful, the same as emotional care withholding, coz sex is more than just a simple physical release, and physical intimacy is really meaningful and important in a relationship. When this is used as a form of manipulation, it can more damaging to the person in need than the withholder might have thought of (self confidence for example), and it ends up damaging the bond between them.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

VeraH said:


> I see. In that case, okay. Why the need for manipulation?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never said there's a need for manipulation. I personally don't manipulate, in terms of the negative connotation of the word.
I have approached women in real life and have found that most of the time, it's based on appearance (obviously) and it never ended well.
It's only when I started talking to people online for lengthy amounts of time, with skype and things like that, that I was able to meet someone that I really get along with.

You say that you are not a strong personality, or the type that would approach men generally. There's nothing wrong with that at all, however, imagine if you didn't have that choice, imagine if, if you didn't approach the men in your life, you would never be with anyone; alone. Of course, the internet eliminates this, like it did for me. So these days it would not be so bad.

What's interesting, is that you think you are not designed to approach. You think that your personality is such that you are just not suited to approaching people.
Why I say it is interesting is because, most men more or less feel the same way. It has never, not once, in my entire life, felt natural to approach a stranger and speak to them, even innocently. It has always taken me a great deal of courage, not just a "slight risk", but a "I am going to literally die if I take one more step toward this person" type of feeling, followed by me saying hello in fear and anticipation of the response.

Of course, it's not all that bad once you do it a hundred times, but that's the same as anything else.

Nobody can be "hooked" or controlled into loving another. It's their choice at all times.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Those analogies are inferior in that specific context, especially when you consider the much more superior one: the friend zone. Girls friendzone guys and "trick them into being used, but never truly loved, while secretly seeing this used person as inferior and usable emotional relief or wallet ready to be discarded (or indefinitely retained) after."
> 
> Our society doesn't have a problem with "friendzone" manipulation either. You would think that, in an equal world, society would equally disdain manipulation, but their are very specific gender-based qualifiers.


Why can't we be friends? 

Why must the guy have an ulterior motive to romantically court the girl. Don't feel so entitled. If it's painful or the relationship is not mutual, leave.



> If PU is wrong because it presents a false front, then makeup is wrong for because it also presents a false front.
> If PU is wrong because it is coercive, then withholding sex is wrong because it is also coercive.
> If PU is wrong because it is callous to its target and self-serving, then friend-zoning is wrong because it is also callous to its target and is self-serving.
> 
> And yet, only PU is hated while the others are not. Why is that?


PU is intent/action. Make-up is superficial appearance. A PU-guy takes effort in his dress/hair too.
PU is deceptively coercing sex from another being. Withholding sex could be arisen from lack of energy/mood/etc. Why can't women have a say when they genuinely just. don't. feel like having sex. Her feelings are not valid now? 
Regarding friend-zone, see above.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Cetanu said:


> It has never, not once, in my entire life, felt natural to approach a stranger and speak to them, even innocently. It has always taken me a great deal of courage, not just a "slight risk", but a "I am going to literally die if I take one more step toward this person" type of feeling, followed by me saying hello in fear and anticipation of the response.


Sorry to be blunt, then that's your anxiety problem that doesn't necessarily have to be permanent. Would you approach a (deemed) not-as-attractive girl? However, if you emotionally bonded with her, she could quite possibly be the most attractive person, no?



> Nobody can be "hooked" or controlled into loving another. It's their choice at all times.


Agreed. It was for lack of better words. I should correct that to "attract". No one is self-entitled, ever.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Same? No. But if you were to analyze the motivations behind a punch or the motivations behind a stab I would expect equal treatment regarding the examination.


Hmm Idk, but I think that motivation behind a punch and motivation behind a stab can probably differ between just wanting to hurt and actually kill? (although then we might add some variables in the middle of the story, like the person is only punching just coz he didn't have the knife near, and so on - hmm I guess that my Ni is just rambling now, and my Ti is weaker... need to go sleep lol)



marked174 said:


> It's not a terrible analysis, and I don't disagree with it, but it's still worthy of note that you have the privilege of being able to make it.
> 
> 
> You're right. Those analogies are inferior in that specific context, especially when you consider the much more superior one: the friend zone. Girls friendzone guys and "trick them into being used, but never truly loved, while secretly seeing this used person as inferior and usable emotional relief or wallet ready to be discarded (or indefinitely retained) after."
> ...


You actually pointed out a better manipulation example than the other ones that were presented in the previous pages of this thread - the friendzone manipulation. I guess that there is probably some truth that nice guys might get more judgment focus on them rather than the women who uses their niceness to their advantage. Thought it can also be due to how some threads that talks about friendzones are written, as some seems to start off with blaming and resentfulness that instead of invoking empathy an understanding, it ended up invoking critics and defensiveness. But in the end, I doubt that women who does use other people's niceness or feelings can find any support.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

VeraH said:


> Sorry to be blunt, then that's your anxiety problem that doesn't necessarily have to be permanent. Would you approach a (deemed) not-as-attractive girl? However, if you emotionally bonded with her, she could quite possibly be the most attractive person, no?


I speak to and approach people that are friendly to me, eg. if they smile at me, no matter what their appearance is. Even if they are drunk, on drugs, or look scary.
It could be anxiety, I don't see how you can be so certain about that though.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Cetanu said:


> I speak to and approach people that are friendly to me, eg. if they smile at me, no matter what their appearance is. Even if they are drunk, on drugs, or look scary.
> It could be anxiety, I don't see how you can be so certain about that though.


I will quote you:



> I am going to literally die ... type of feeling


It sounds like anxiety. Do you feel nervous/panicky? 

But I don't know you personally, it just appears to be it from info presented.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> Why can't we be friends?
> 
> Why must the guy have an ulterior motive to romantically court the girl. Don't feel so entitled. If it's painful or the relationship is not mutual, leave.


PUAs feel the same way. "Why can't we just have sex? Just because I wanna sleep with you doesn't mean I want to have a relationship. Did you expect something our interactions that you didn't get. Not my problem. Stop feeling so entitled."

It's the same type of logic.



VeraH said:


> PU is intent/action. Make-up is superficial appearance. A PU-guy takes effort in his dress/hair too.


 Sure does, but when he's "peacocking" he has the balls to admit that it's deceptive.



VeraH said:


> PU is deceptively coercing sex from another being. Withholding sex could be arisen from lack of energy/mood/etc. Why can't women have a say when they genuinely just. don't. feel like having sex. Her feelings are not valid now?


Try harder. No one said she doesn't have valid feelings. The premise was that she is manipulatively withholding sex. If she's not having sex because of something legitimate, then she's not withholding for manipulation, but if she is withholding for manipulation, then she is just as coercive as the PUA when he does his "freezout" technique.



AriesLilith said:


> Hmm Idk, but I think that motivation behind a punch and motivation behind a stab can probably differ between just wanting to hurt and actually kill? (although then we might add some variables in the middle of the story, like the person is only punching just coz he didn't have the knife near, and so on - hmm I guess that my Ni is just rambling now, and my Ti is weaker... need to go sleep lol)


 I'm not talking about the motivation, I'm talking about the *analysis* of the motivation. 



AriesLilith said:


> You actually pointed out a better manipulation example than the other ones that were presented in the previous pages of this thread - the friendzone manipulation. I guess that there is probably some truth that nice guys might get more judgment focus on them rather than the women who uses their niceness to their advantage. Thought it can also be due to how some threads that talks about friendzones are written, as some seems to start off with blaming and resentfulness that instead of invoking empathy an understanding, it ended up invoking critics and defensiveness. But in the end, I doubt that women who does use other people's niceness or feelings can find any support.


 By attacking the nice guys, the manipulative women receive support (you don't have to look very far to see an example). 

Women often speak on how betrayed they feel after a PUA uses them for sex and quickly moves on, but nice guys feel the same betrayal. I guess the new term for this is called being "slutzoned". Girls in the slutzone play the role of the girlfriend in that they have sex, but are denied the other parts of the relationship. Guys in the friendzone play the role of the boyfriend in that they spend time and money on the girl and let them emotionally dump on him (everything a boyfriend does), but are denied the sex and intimacy. They are two sides of the same coin.

It is surprising to find, however, that even though many people will often attack the nice guy who was taken advantage of, no one seems to attack the girl who was taken advantage of.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

VeraH said:


> I will quote you:
> 
> It sounds like anxiety. Do you feel nervous/panicky?
> 
> But I don't know you personally, it just appears to be it from info presented.


It probably is some form of social anxiety. Mostly it seems like a fight/flight response kicks in.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Villainous said:


> Those are the obvious manipulators. Most women are more discreet and are not criticized. For example, women that withhold sex as a way to get their man to do house chores. LOTS of women do this ALL the time with no criticism. Mostly because men don't even know that's what's going on. Even many women do know they're doing this as is has become so natural and subconscious to them. Gold diggers are only criticized because men know what's going on. If they didn't, you can bet sure as hell other women would not rush to point out how they take advantage of men.
> 
> And, since always. Pointing out the flaws in both sides has frequently lead to more improvements than continuing to bicker which side is correct


Of course both man and woman can decline to have sex, if they don't feel like it. Frankly I don't think it's about making a man do chores. 

In my experience, which admittedly but fortunately is limited mostly to the first relation I mentioned earlier, and a few other occasions, and what I have picked up from conversations about this, this withholding is usually in a context of feeling (emotionally) neglected or invalidated, or jealousy. So she may feel just as much the man is withholding her something she feels entitled to. (whether or not this is reasonable)

In that first relation it could really piss me off, if she empowered her pussy that way, because her resentment or hostility was not addressed in a direct and explicit way (for instance complain about being late). The intention was often to make me feel there was something wrong and make me figure out myself what it was (being late), and hopefully enforce a confession and remorse. It was this kind of psychological punishment without trial and innuendo that made me angry, not to be denied sex. With my last gf, who did try it, I made the agreement to address and try to resolve these issues together, outside of the bedroom. 

I don't think you need to criticize (blame) women. I don't object, but I think women are well aware of female indirect (passive) aggression strategies they can just as much apply to each other. What's more interesting, what you are going to do about it? And I mean, are you going to criticize women for playing dumb blonde to get something done, by men who like to believe they are?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> It is surprising to find, however, that even though many people will often attack the nice guy who was taken advantage of, no one seems to attack the girl who was taken advantage of.


Because the way you talk about (nice guys) being denied sex is pathetic.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

mimesis said:


> Because the way you talk about (nice guys) being denied sex is pathetic.


No more pathetic than when a PUA bumps and dumps a girl. Why so hostile?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> No more pathetic than when a PUA bumps and dumps a girl. Why so hostile?


Because it sounds like you reason from a distance, and out of touch. I don't discern a lot, if any elaborated personal experience. If you ask 'why can't we just have sex' it just give me the creeps. It seems to lack any conception of body integrity. Tell me, why can't I just put a broomstick in your rectum? That's weird isn't it?


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

marked174 said:


> PUAs feel the same way. "Why can't we just have sex? Just because I wanna sleep with you doesn't mean I want to have a relationship. Did you expect something our interactions that you didn't get. Not my problem. Stop feeling so entitled."
> 
> It's the same type of logic.


So I can be friends with a girl, but I can't be friends with a guy otherwise I'm "manipulative"? And somehow, he feels strung along even though I care about his needs (not sexual), emotions, views, etc., everything the usual friendship entails? I do not see him as an object. I do not see him as an emotional dumpster. He is a friend and a valued person (Though, I'm starting to doubt the popularity of platonic friendships as I get older, in reality). 

This is *why* I dismiss promiscuous guys. You view sex as an activity with no meaning. I believe the same way at current, but at one point saw it as a shared and meaningful experience between two people with a bond. You've desensitized yourself to sex as a bonding experience. No longer selective, and no longer care. Women are just a means to relieve yourself. Though, not all guys seem to adopt this misogynistic attitude.



> Sure does, but when he's "peacocking" he has the balls to admit that it's deceptive.


It's not "deceptive". It's _just_ appearance. Make-up, or being made-up, is just visual appeal. Someone finds you attractive, cool. Otherwise, cool.



> Try harder. No one said she doesn't have valid feelings. The premise was that she is manipulatively withholding sex. If she's not having sex because of something legitimate, then she's not withholding for manipulation, but if she is withholding for manipulation, then she is just as coercive as the PUA when he does his "freezout" technique.


If that's the case, she's a manipulative bitch. When PUA does that, he's a dick. Low-quality actions reflects on low-quality thinking. Just how low can you go? 

Ditch her. Ditch him.



> By attacking the nice guys, the manipulative women receive support (you don't have to look very far to see an example).


Could you please elaborate



> Women often speak on how betrayed they feel after a PUA uses them for sex and quickly moves on, but nice guys feel the same betrayal. I guess the new term for this is called being "slutzoned". Girls in the slutzone play the role of the girlfriend in that they have sex, but are denied the other parts of the relationship. Guys in the friendzone play the role of the boyfriend in that they spend time and money on the girl and let them emotionally dump on him (everything a boyfriend does), but are denied the sex and intimacy. They are two sides of the same coin.


She has the right to leave. The responsibility for her wellbeing rests with her. Same with the "friend-zoned" guy.

And if that's the case, regarding how guys now establish girls in the "slut-zone", this confirms my suspicions. Ladies who want commitment, close. your. legs. So that guys can't use us because we're evil and aren't "entitled" to a meaningful relationship.



> It is surprising to find, however, that even though many people will often attack the nice guy who was taken advantage of, no one seems to attack the girl who was taken advantage of.


Because I was genuine. I made it clear at the outset what I wanted, he didn't. If a guy made it clear at the outset that he wanted a romantic relation, I would have said, "sorry, that's not what I can do, you are free to continue your life". I have done this. I even went the extra mile to check that he was okay a few months later to see how he was going. He's building on himself and will one day be ready and find an equivalently wonderful lady to be with.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> So I can be friends with a girl, but I can't be friends with a guy otherwise I'm "manipulative"? And somehow, he feels strung along even though I care about his needs (not sexual), emotions, views, etc., everything the usual friendship entails? I do not see him as an object. I do not see him as an emotional dumpster. He is a friend and a valued person (Though, I'm starting to doubt the popularity of platonic friendships as I get older, in reality).


 If it's a real friendship, then he's not in the friendzone. If he's friendzoned, then he is obviously not getting fulfillment from being with her. It is nearly always one-sided. Girls who friendzone guys rarely value them, and are often more than satisfied with the idea that they are lonely. The difference between a girl who is a guy's friend and a girl who friendzone's him are galaxies apart. The "friend" in friendzone is a misnomer.



VeraH said:


> This is *why* I dismiss promiscuous guys. You view sex as an activity with no meaning. I believe the same way at current, but at one point saw it as a shared and meaningful experience between two people with a bond. You've desensitized yourself to sex as a bonding experience. No longer selective, and no longer care. Women are just a means to relieve yourself. Though, not all guys seem to adopt this misogynistic attitude.


 I certainly don't. My views on the subject are very close to the quoted comment directly above. Some men, however, don't feel that way. I think that they are just as selfish and harmful as the girl who friendzoned, in fact that was my entire point. I just find it odd that society doesn't treat those two with the same equality.



VeraH said:


> It's not "deceptive". It's _just_ appearance. Make-up, or being made-up, is just visual appeal. Someone finds you attractive, cool. Otherwise, cool.


PUAs are also working on appearance. They conceal their flaws in order to attract the same way. They accentuate attractive features the same way. If make-up is not deceptive, then neither are pick-up techniques; as they both exist to serve the *exact same purpose*.



VeraH said:


> If that's the case, she's a manipulative bitch. When PUA does that, he's a dick.


Agreed.



VeraH said:


> Could you please elaborate


 If guys complain about being manipulated and are then swiftly attacked for it, then the attackers are aiding the manipulators.




VeraH said:


> She has the right to leave. The responsibility for her wellbeing rests with her. Same with the "friend-zoned" guy.
> 
> And if that's the case, regarding how guys now establish girls in the "slut-zone", this confirms my suspicions. Ladies who want commitment, close. your. legs. So that guys can't use us because we're evil and aren't "entitled" to a meaningful relationship.


I disagree. I never understood the idea that I would lose respect for a woman because she slept with me. If I make a connection with a woman, and she open's up to me on an intimate and physical level, then I don't lose respect to that. If anything, it shows that she has intimacy availability: something I am looking for. Contrast that sharply with the woman who withholds sex from me in order to illicit a commitment from me. I definitely lose respect to that, because that woman proved that manipulating me in order to get what she wants is something she is more than willing to do.



VeraH said:


> Because I was genuine. I made it clear at the outset what I wanted, he didn't. If a guy made it clear at the outset that he wanted a romantic relation, I would have said, "sorry, that's not what I can do, you are free to continue your life". I have done this. I even went the extra mile to check that he was okay a few months later to see how he was going. He's building on himself and will one day be ready and find an equivalently wonderful lady to be with.


 If I guy made it clear at the outset that he wanted a romantic relationship, then you would have considered him to be a creep. No one in their right mind would tell a woman that from the outset, he just met her. Whenever a woman claims she wants brazen honesty like that, then I know she's full of B.S.

And that's the fuel that PUAs feed off of: the fact that women are completely full of shit when they talk about what they want from men in dating. It's disrespectful, and creates the premise that there's a big difference from what a woman says she wants and what she actually wants. I'll let you discern whether or not that premise lends itself to any potential problems down the road.


----------



## XO Skeleton (Jan 18, 2011)

WolfStar said:


> Because the difference for you is that you're interested in getting in her pants.


So you mean to tell me that when you are interested in someone romantically, you have no plans whatsoever to sleep with them? Sure you can talk to a woman, get to know her, etc, etc; she will think of you as a real good friend. But if you want to not get thrown inti the friend zone, there are some things you have to do and say in order to make this happen. 

Like many things in life, some things come naturally to certain people while others have to learn it. If you go your whole life thinking you can talk to all womwn the same despite having different. Motives, you're not going to get what you want. Its like walking into a ice cream shop asking for ice cream. Then going to a shoe store asking for ice cream. That'd the equivalent of talking to a woman wanting to be a friend. Then going to a different woman using the same approach wanting to form an intimate relationship.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

marked174 said:


> PUAs are also working on appearance. They conceal their flaws in order to attract the same way. They accentuate attractive features the same way. If make-up is not deceptive, then neither are pick-up techniques; as they both exist to serve the *exact same purpose*.


Make-up, or being made-up, is *not* a manipulation tactic. A guy working on his appearance is doing just that, it does not immediately turn him PUA. PUA knowingly uses tactics to manipulate. There is *no* justification for manipulating a person.

If a person isn't fulfilled in a relationship, then get out of it. No-one is forcing you to stay. The person who friend-zoned you was a bitch, the person who PUA'd or slut-zoned you was a dick.



> If guys complain about being manipulated and are then swiftly attacked for it, then the attackers are aiding the manipulators.


I haven't witnessed this yet, but would definitely not agree with it.



> I disagree. I never understood the idea that I would lose respect for a woman because she slept with me. If I make a connection with a woman, and she open's up to me on an intimate and physical level, then I don't lose respect to that. If anything, it shows that she has intimacy availability: something I am looking for. Contrast that sharply with the woman who withholds sex from me in order to illicit a commitment from me. I definitely lose respect to that, because that woman proved that manipulating me in order to get what she wants is something she is more than willing to do.


Okay, thanks for clarifying., which differs to what you were saying before. By intimacy, are you referring to sex or emotional bonding? But what is the slut-zone you mentioned of? 



> If I guy made it clear at the outset that he wanted a romantic relationship, then you would have considered him to be a creep. No one in their right mind would tell a woman that from the outset, he just met her. Whenever a woman claims she wants brazen honesty like that, then I know she's full of B.S.


At the outset does not mean upon introduction. And it doesn,'t have to be as blatant as "I want a relationship, to love, cherish, and honor you." That is creepy lol. But if a guy wants just sex, or knowingly isn't ready for a relationship, then make it clear and don't string people along with them thinking otherwise. With the socially-inept guy I met, it was at temp job. It wasn't a cold-approach meeting.



> And that's the fuel that PUAs feed off of: the fact that women are completely full of shit when they talk about what they want from men in dating. It's disrespectful, and creates the premise that there's a big difference from what a woman says she wants and what she actually wants. I'll let you discern whether or not that premise lends itself to any potential problems down the road.


Okay, how about in summary:
Woman wants good man. Man wants good woman. But users and manipulators make this hard to achieve.

Further, can you tell me how PUA can contribute positively to the equation? Can you tell me how a female-"PUA" equivalent can contribute positively to the equation?

Also, however, with the culture of promiscuity, if both parties hypothetically, permanently want to have casual sexual relations, emotional intimacy is made redundant., Sex does not equal bond. Friendship does not equal relationship.

Friendship (bond) + sex = fulfilling relationship for both parties, in my belief. Further, if sex is a *meaningful* activity, I believe it could strengthen bond. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking, now.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> Okay, thanks for clarifying., which differs to what you were saying before. By intimacy, are you referring to sex or emotional bonding? But what is the slut-zone you mentioned of?


 When a person (usually a girl) wants a relationship but instead is only used for sex. I'm looking for both.




VeraH said:


> At the outset does not mean upon introduction. And it doesn,'t have to be as blatant as "I want a relationship, to love, cherish, and honor you." That is creepy lol. But if a guy wants just sex, then make it clear and don't string people along with them thinking otherwise. With the socially-inept guy I met, it was at temp job. It wasn't a cold-approach meeting.


 Right, but where do you draw the line. When is "too soon" and when is it too late to call it "the onset". Each woman has a different definition. WHich definition should a guy refer to? In the end, it's unreasonable to expect a guy to know how honest he's supposed to be and when.




VeraH said:


> Okay, how about in summary:
> Woman wants good man. Man wants good woman. But users and manipulators make this hard to achieve.
> 
> Further, can you tell me how PUA can contribute positively to the equation? Can you tell me how a female-"PUA" equivalent can contribute positively to the equation?


No. I never contended that they did.


----------



## XO Skeleton (Jan 18, 2011)

This is a common fact: lots of women use mind games in relationships. The way I see it, pua techniques are the anti venom to the games women play. I mean in a perfect world, everyone would be honest with eachother, but in reality, if you do this, you will only get played. Of course, some women, very few of them, play no games. These are usually the ones (nice girls) who end up getting played.

At the same time, there are women who play games. The man then counter acts her games with games of his own. He gets the wonan to have feelings for him, then he sleeps with her and then doesn't call her again. Some of my friends, who have never even heard of pua, do this. Its called game. And its called "game" for a reason. This is why they say, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."

Pua is just that. A game. A system in place to serve a specific purpose. It can be used for good as well as evil. Its like alcohol. Alcohol can be used to loosen people up and relax at parties and other social gatherings. It can also be used to get people drunk and take advantage of them.

Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Right, but where do you draw the line. When is "too soon" and when is it too late to call it "the onset". Each woman has a different definition. WHich definition should a guy refer to? In the end, it's unreasonable to expect a guy to know how honest he's supposed to be and when.


Just at the point before anything ensues. So no-one is falsely committed/strung along.



> No. I never contended that they did.


Okay. It's just you were defending them and justifying their presence prior. Made it seem like you saw there was some purpose for *why* PUA should be adopted. I get your arguments, but I don't think it should be against "women", but against manipulators (including PUA) overall.


----------



## Peripheral (Jan 8, 2011)

Ahhh, this thread has been entertaining. I think Mark Manson has some interesting perspectives on PUA since he used to be one, check him out.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> I'm not talking about the motivation, I'm talking about the *analysis* of the motivation.


I can't understand what you wanted to say. But to simplify this, maybe we can revert back to the "rape VS withholding sex as manipulation" scenario - raping is coercing/forcing the victim to submit, in a way that the victim does not have any option to leave, and it is also a horrible violation of the other person; while withholding sex as a form of manipulation doesn't necessarily force the other to submit, the other person has the option to walk away, even thought on the other hand, there is also emotional damage (thought I'm not sure if we'd want to compare both scenarios' emotional damage).



marked174 said:


> By attacking the nice guys, the manipulative women receive support (you don't have to look very far to see an example).
> 
> Women often speak on how betrayed they feel after a PUA uses them for sex and quickly moves on, but nice guys feel the same betrayal. I guess the new term for this is called being "slutzoned". Girls in the slutzone play the role of the girlfriend in that they have sex, but are denied the other parts of the relationship. Guys in the friendzone play the role of the boyfriend in that they spend time and money on the girl and let them emotionally dump on him (everything a boyfriend does), but are denied the sex and intimacy. They are two sides of the same coin.
> 
> It is surprising to find, however, that even though many people will often attack the nice guy who was taken advantage of, no one seems to attack the girl who was taken advantage of.


IMO, I doubt that anyone would disagree that women who uses the niceness of a guy while tricks him into continue having a false hope with her is morally wrong. Problem is, as I probably have mentioned in a previous post, that often the threads and articles about nice guys are too full of blaming on women and resentment for the gender, that it rather invokes hate and judgemental critics rather than empathy and understanding. There are indeed nice guys that are innocent and are used and tricked by those manipulative women, thought there are also those who are actually not so nice and blames women for not having what they want. Honestly, for this kind of thing gender is not discriminated, that women who behave like that, getting all resentful and blaming men entirely for their lack of success ("oh I have offered him sex and yet he didn't want a relationship with me, therefore every men is just *ssholes that only cares about sex!"), are wrong as well.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> When a person (usually a girl) wants a relationship but instead is only used for sex. I'm looking for both.


I would suggest you assign more energy and attention to understanding women rather than waste your energy in accusing women and defensively positioning yourself (or manhood) as a victim, which in my view only serves to shift blame and channel frustration about something you seem to see as some kind of entitlement, by virtue of being a man, or something to earn by virtue of being kind or as a transaction of favors, or something to acquire by applying techniques or even something to conquer by applying force (referring to your rape comparison). Just try to understand that 'something' as a gift of someone like you, with desires, likes, needs and fears and as something that needs to match and complement (with what you give, desire, like, etc).


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> Just at the point before anything ensues. So no-one is falsely committed/strung along.


 It is very difficult pinpoint that point quantitatively.




VeraH said:


> Okay. It's just you were defending them and justifying their presence prior. Made it seem like you saw there was some purpose for *why* PUA should be adopted. I get your arguments, but I don't think it should be against "women", but against manipulators (including PUA) overall.


If you read my posts in this thread, you would know that I am definitely not justifying or defending PU.



AriesLilith said:


> I can't understand what you wanted to say. But to simplify this, maybe we can revert back to the "rape VS withholding sex as manipulation" scenario - raping is coercing/forcing the victim to submit, in a way that the victim does not have any option to leave, and it is also a horrible violation of the other person; while withholding sex as a form of manipulation doesn't necessarily force the other to submit, the other person has the option to walk away, even thought on the other hand, there is also emotional damage (thought I'm not sure if we'd want to compare both scenarios' emotional damage).


 I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this point. I was simply stating that there are some things that I am simply not allowed to talk about. You gave reasons for why a person might do something wrong (withholding) and I was simply stating that if I did the same thing, then I would be considered an advocate of it. The particular issue being analyzed is irrelevant. The topic of rape is not the only instance of this. A glowing example is the OP. I aimed to analyze the reaction to PUAs and have been characterized as one who practices it or defends it, when in all actuality the opposite is true. My entire point about the analogy was that although you might think it's no big deal to explore the reasons why a woman does wrong, I know that if I did the same thing regarding men, I would be met with serious opposition entailing false accusations on my intent and character.




AriesLilith said:


> IMO, I doubt that anyone would disagree that women who uses the niceness of a guy while tricks him into continue having a false hope with her is morally wrong. Problem is, as I probably have mentioned in a previous post, that often the threads and articles about nice guys are too full of blaming on women and resentment for the gender, that it rather invokes hate and judgemental critics rather than empathy and understanding. There are indeed nice guys that are innocent and are used and tricked by those manipulative women, thought there are also those who are actually not so nice and blames women for not having what they want. Honestly, for this kind of thing gender is not discriminated, that women who behave like that, getting all resentful and blaming men entirely for their lack of success ("oh I have offered him sex and yet he didn't want a relationship with me, therefore every men is just *ssholes that only cares about sex!"), are wrong as well.


 Agreed, but I don't see the same kind of hostility in those threads. For example, last night a new thread was created which lamented how a woman did not receive the kind of relationship that she wanted. http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/166288-stop-offering-d-ck.html This thread has been largely supportive, and lacks a certain hostility which would *definitely*be present if it were a man complaining that he was not receiving the kind of relationship he wanted. If there wasn't such a double-standard either women would get reamed when they complain or men would receive support when they complain, but it's simply not the case.



mimesis said:


> I would suggest...


 There's an awful lot of projecting and false assertions in this post



mimesis said:


> you assign more energy and attention to understanding women rather than waste your energy in accusing women


 Accusing them of what? What are you talking about?



mimesis said:


> and defensively positioning yourself (or manhood) as a victim,


 Again, what? suggesting that one not be treated a certain way is not positioning into victim hood. No one suggested that women who are used by PUAs paint themselves as victims, so why would you claim that men do when they are placed in a similar situation? Inconsistent.



mimesis said:


> which in my view only serves to shift blame and channel frustration about something you seem to see as some kind of entitlement,


 Being treated equally is an entitlement worth having, and discussing social dynamics which stand in the way of that are worth having; the focus of which is rarely to assign blame but to rather discover the source of a problem and determine a source for its solution.



mimesis said:


> by virtue of being a man, or something to earn by virtue of being kind or as a transaction of favors, or something to acquire by applying techniques or even something to conquer by applying force (referring to your rape comparison).


 Ridiculous. The same slights against men apply equally to women who undergo the same treatment. There is no "virtue of being a man" being espoused here. @AriesLilith If you need an example of me being attacked and misrepresented simply for claiming to analyze rape, look no further. I swear, someone stoops that low *every single time*.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this point. I was simply stating that there are some things that I am simply not allowed to talk about. You gave reasons for why a person might do something wrong (withholding) and I was simply stating that if I did the same thing, then I would be considered an advocate of it. The particular issue being analyzed is irrelevant. The topic of rape is not the only instance of this. A glowing example is the OP. I aimed to analyze the reaction to PUAs and have been characterized as one who practices it or defends it, when in all actuality the opposite is true. My entire point about the analogy was that although you might think it's no big deal to explore the reasons why a woman does wrong, I know that if I did the same thing regarding men, I would be met with serious opposition entailing false accusations on my intent and character.


You said that you were simply stating that if you did the same thing, then you'd be considered as an advocate of it, and that the particular issue being analyzed is irrelevant. Maybe I'm not fully understnding what you are saying, thought the particular issues or examples are relevant, and their differences are relevant. I doubt that mentioning rape towards men would not raise judgements like mentioning rape towards women would. As I've said before, rape is a serious violation and forceful action, that is why it's not really comparable even to PUA tricks (at least PUA tricks are trying to trick, which is bad, but they are not on the level of rape).

Thought I guess that we are going on a loop here, and I guess that we have to agree to disagree in this.



marked174 said:


> Agreed, but I don't see the same kind of hostility in those threads. For example, last night a new thread was created which lamented how a woman did not receive the kind of relationship that she wanted. http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/166288-stop-offering-d-ck.html This thread has been largely supportive, and lacks a certain hostility which would *definitely*be present if it were a man complaining that he was not receiving the kind of relationship he wanted. If there wasn't such a double-standard either women would get reamed when they complain or men would receive support when they complain, but it's simply not the case.


I've seen threads in which a guy talked about some misfortunes and not being treated decently, and they also had some support too. I guess that it depends on how things are written, the impression the OP gives, so that it would invoke either empathy or judgment (a side observation, it sometimes seems to depend on the first replies too as the rest might follow the flow, whether it was fair or not :/).

But honestly I don't know, you might be right or not as I'm not too updated of all the nice guys and PUA and dating issues that are going on, which also depends a lot on the culture and where we live.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

Before I comment, I want to say from the outset that I disagree with PUAs on the intent and goal of their pursuits--that is, to sleep with women without any desire to develop a deeper relationship. That behavior does not sync with my values. Further, many of the "techniques" are laughable (i.e., cheesy) and certainly don't "work" on the type of woman that I would want to attract anyway.

Nevertheless, I do want to say a couple of things:

(1). In my opinion, there *are* subtle, hidden rules of attraction that affect us subconsciously--probably both biologically and culturally driven. Being aware of these subliminal rules is not a bad thing. And I've seen them play out in dating situations as well as in established relationships.

(2). Let's be honest--in most, if not all cultures, it is expected that the man initiate contact with the woman. So, even if our intent is to simply approach someone because we feel that the person is attractive/interesting/fun and would like to get to know that person a bit more, we need to know point #1 in order to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot right off the bat. Things like good body language and conversational techniques can greatly improve one's chances at meeting somebody cool and getting to know him/her. Indeed, many of this information is important in all interpersonal relationships (e.g., career). Furthermore, on average, women are much better at picking up social cues than men--it's a great skill to have in life.

(3). Lastly and most importantly, "techniques" and pick-up lines don't work. *Internal qualities*, like confidence, self-awareness, and purpose-driven goal seeking behavior (e.g., career, humanistic, or athletic/hobby pursuits), create attraction. In other words, you have your shit together, know what you want in life, and are actively pursuing those things without relying on anyone else to supply your happiness. In my observations, women can smell desperation from a mile away. See point #1.

It's not rocket science, of course, but all of these things are discussed in some of the "PUA literature" I've run across. Many guys have no clue about these three points above--so, in order to create and sustain attraction with someone you potentially want to love for the rest of your life, it behooves one to clue in a bit...


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> Inconsistent.


Yes, I noticed this is often the center of the case you want to make (not just in this thread). You raise your finger and point at what in your view is inconsistent or unequal, or unfair. 

Just going back a few of your latest posts: "And yet, only PU is hated while the others are not." , "If women are as manipulative as PUAs, then why do people hate PUAs more than they do manipulative women?" "No one had a problem listing ways girls say one thing and mean another, but no one could raise ways guys do the same thing. I was dissapointed by this."

Now I wouldn't say consistency is not important, because it is. However, _this_ is consistency according to you:

"If make-up is not deceptive, then neither are pick-up techniques; as they both exist to serve the *exact same purpose*."


You like to present yourself as a logical thinker, but there are really flaws in your reasoning. For example:

I work to be able to buy food and survive.
I steal to be able to buy food and survive. 
Following your line of reasoning, if working is not deceptive (dishonest), then neither stealing is deceptive (dishonest) because they serve the exact same objective. 

You can't see what is wrong about your logic because of the underlying premisses you assume to be true, which in this case is the *false* assumption that if the objectives are the same then the means to these ends are equal too. 

Just like you see the Friendzone relations as unequal or inconsistent (blaming the woman, vicitmizng the man), "If it's a real friendship, then he's not in the friendzone. If he's friendzoned, then he is obviously not getting fulfillment from being with her. It is nearly always one-sided."

Again, we need to look at the underlying assumption, upon which your 'consistency' argument is based. Apparently the (hidden) premisse is that a friendship is equal and true when they fulfill each other's desire, which apparently *includes* sex. 

Suppose you and I have become friends, and I have been helping you out with a lot of things, and then I come out of the closet and tell you that I am gay, and I would like you to give me a blowjob. Now, if you would refuse to give me that fulfillment, would it be fair to say you are not a true friend and are withholding sex from me, and that it is onesided, and that because of your refusal, the word 'friend' would be a misnomer? Because that's basically what you are stating. 

So, when your underlying assumptions or hidden premisses suck, then your whole reasoning sucks, no matter how consistent or logically valid you apply them, or how inconsistent you see others. And what I wrote, which you call false assertions, is based on looking at the underlying assumptions of your statements. (although I am not saying you act on them, because like I said earlier, it strikes more as reasoning from a distance, like an 'observer', and not based on personal experience)


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

mimesis said:


> Yes, I noticed this is often the center of the case you want to make (not just in this thread). You raise your finger and point at what in your view is inconsistent or unequal, or unfair.
> 
> Just going back a few of your latest posts: "And yet, only PU is hated while the others are not." , "If women are as manipulative as PUAs, then why do people hate PUAs more than they do manipulative women?" "No one had a problem listing ways girls say one thing and mean another, but no one could raise ways guys do the same thing. I was dissapointed by this."
> 
> ...


My failure was in articulation. It's true that two methods are not always the same simply because they both aim to meet a similar end. By stating this, I now find myself in error. Rather I should have said that the two issues are comparable not only because they serve the same purpose, but also that they were conceived for the same motivations, employ the same dynamics, illicit the same response, and serve the same purpose. I should have been more thorough.

However, your analogy is a faulty comparison. You are trying to compare honest work and dishonest theft with dishonest PU and dishonest cosmetics. 

I work to be able to buy food and survive. 
I steal to be able to buy food and survive. 
The common denominator in both cases is survival, not honesty

I use makeup to deceptively attract a mate.
I use PU to deceptively attract a mate.
The common denominator is deception.

I will admit that it's a deceptive and clever trick to compare the issue of honesty in a premise with an issue of honesty in a conclusion, as it is initially intuitive to conflate the two; but it's certainly not honest (ironically).




mimesis said:


> Just like you see the Friendzone relations as unequal or inconsistent (blaming the woman, vicitmizng the man), "If it's a real friendship, then he's not in the friendzone. If he's friendzoned, then he is obviously not getting fulfillment from being with her. It is nearly always one-sided."
> 
> Again, we need to look at the underlying assumption, upon which your 'consistency' argument is based. Apparently the (hidden) premisse is that a friendship is equal and true when they fulfill each other's desire, which apparently *includes* sex.


Not at all. The "hidden premise" for a friendship is respect and care, not sex. If a guy (or girl, doesn't have to be a man) feels respected and cared about then he will not be in a friendzone, he will be in a friendship: huge difference. 

I had feelings for a girl once who only wanted to be friends. The thing is, she actually meant it when she said and wasn't just playing lip service. She genuinely respected and cared about me (something friendzoning girls rarely do), and actively supported me in my quest to find someone (something friendzoning girls never do). The faulty premise you make is that nice guys are offended because they aren't getting sex when the truth is that they're getting offended because they aren't getting the care and respect that a friend deserves. 



mimesis said:


> Suppose you and I have become friends, and I have been helping you out with a lot of things, and then I come out of the closet and tell you that I am gay, and I would like you to give me a blowjob. Now, if you would refuse to give me that fulfillment, would it be fair to say you are not a true friend and are withholding sex from me, and that it is onesided, and that because of your refusal, the word 'friend' would be a misnomer? Because that's basically what you are stating.


 No it isn't. I'm stating that, after I declined your blowjob offer, I continued to leech off of you emotionally, spend your money, flirt with you teasingly, ignore you when it's convenient, get jealous when others talk to you, complain to you about my relationship problems, and laugh at you behind your back then the word "friend" would be a misnomer.




mimesis said:


> So, when your underlying assumptions or hidden premisses suck, then your whole reasoning sucks, no matter how consistent or logically valid you apply them, or how inconsistent you see others. And what I wrote, which you call false assertions, is based on looking at the underlying assumptions of your statements. (although I am not saying you act on them, because like I said earlier, it strikes more as reasoning from a distance, like an 'observer', and not based on personal experience)


That's not the issue. I failed to fully articulate my assertions, lending myself to you filling in the blanks to construct a straw man. It's my fault, I admit. Should have been more thorough.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

> It is very difficult pinpoint that point quantitatively.


You don't have to indicate after X number of conversations/contact. Can you read social cues, understand words, understand gestures? When someone, for example, continually asks you for personal dinner dates, starts saying suggestive things, gives you "special" attention, etc... Don't be a tease. Don't be a user. Don't string them along.

There is no excuse, for lack of transparency because someone else is at harm. If no words are stated, then it's your silent *actions* that sends feedback to that person. Be mindful.



marked174 said:


> However, your analogy is a faulty comparison. You are trying to compare honest work and dishonest theft with dishonest PU and dishonest cosmetics.
> 
> I work to be able to buy food and survive.
> I steal to be able to buy food and survive.
> ...


x leads to z.
y leads to z.
So does x = y? 

Toyota is a car.
Porsche is a car.
Is Toyota a Porsche? 

Makeup (material, can be used to) attracts a mate.
PU (actions, can be used to) attracts a mate.
Is makeup the same as PU? 

The common denominator isn't deception, it's the person using makeup/PU tactics to their advantage. Intent matters. A guy using PUA has intent (100%). SOME guys who don't use PUA have intent. SOME girls wearing makeup have intent. SOME girls who don't wear makeup have intent.



> The "hidden premise" for a friendship is respect and care, not sex. If a guy (or girl, doesn't have to be a man) feels respected and cared about then he will not be in a friendzone, he will be in a friendship: huge difference.


And so the "slut-zone"...? A person's actions, resultant from their intentions, is resultant from their values, which is a reflection of who they are as a person. 



> No it isn't. I'm stating that, after I declined your blowjob offer, I continued to leech off of you emotionally, spend your money, flirt with you teasingly, ignore you when it's convenient, get jealous when others talk to you, complain to you about my relationship problems, and laugh at you behind your back then the word "friend" would be a misnomer.


Then why put up with the BS? As for women, why put up with the BS? Your wellbeing is your responsibility. Even though I express my hate against poor-quality guys (people), how is that going to benefit me and society? It doesn't. The reality is: you need to own up to your shit, be pro-active about it, and improve yourself. Change you (everyone/anyone) because you can't change the world (in a day).


----------



## Dashing (Sep 19, 2011)

Spades said:


> There is a difference between tips on "how to obtain and maintain a healthy relationship" and "how to get girls to like you, bro". Hint: the approach is massively different.


Well you've got to start somewhere.

I don't think that there is a lot wrong with the theory; it's the connotation that kills it. It's like saying the internet is evil and should be banned because people do illegal or immoral shit with it. 

Though I do agree that there is a defnite difference between the PUA-style and how to actually maintain a healthy relationship.

Nobody is stopping anyone from creating these kinds of things. If you don't like their style why not change it and just put it up on the internet for people to learn?


How about this?


----------



## Shazzette (May 26, 2012)

marked174 said:


> I've recently been seeing a lot of negativity surrounding PUAs, and I'd like to know what's so irritating about them. I have some ideological differences in values from them, but many here can't stand them.
> 
> What's so wrong about PUAs?


Because the principles on which pick-up artistry is based is degrading to both men and women.

It's basically telling men that if they want to be sexually fulfilled that they need to target women with low self-esteem, insult them, have sex with them and then dump them.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> My failure was in articulation. It's true that two methods are not always the same simply because they both aim to meet a similar end. By stating this, I now find myself in error. Rather I should have said that the two issues are comparable not only because they serve the same purpose, but also that they were conceived for the same motivations, employ the same dynamics, illicit the same response, and serve the same purpose. I should have been more thorough.
> 
> However, your analogy is a faulty comparison. You are trying to compare honest work and dishonest theft with dishonest PU and dishonest cosmetics.
> 
> ...



LOL, you argued that if Make Up wasn't deceptive, PUA tactics wasn't deceptive either, *because* they are both means to the (exact) same end. 

So the premisse is "*if* the means have the exact same objective, *then* the means are equal/alike (deceptive, morally, whatever, it didn't make any sense what you said anyway)". 

What you come up with now is a bit hilarious, as you just restated your opinion (that they are alike), you still didn't logically prove anything. And then say I was being deceptive and using a trick, because in my example the means were not alike. I really wonder whether you get this, because this breathes self-referential solipsism. But let's move on why I think they are not alike. 

So if you will, the assumption is that women use makeup to attract a mate. If that were true then only single, available women looking for a mate would wear make up right? They would not wear it when going to a meeting with females only. This is obviously not the case, which is I think enough to falsify that assertion. 

Now I would agree on the point that make up is intended to be more attractive. Yet, the focus may not even be on attracting a mate as much as it is on competing attractivity with other women, to establish social value, comparable with men training their muscles, whether or not in combination with the use of anabolic steroids and other chemistry. (but that ain't manipulation right?)
Steroids vs Natural: The Muscle Building Effects Of Steroid Use

If there is anything deceitful about it, it's perhaps in the 'openly' (perhaps self-) denial of women being competitive. 'I'm doing it for myself'. This explains why negging can be effective, like telling her she is just the third person he saw with that dress that night. It's I believe also why a woman who 'openly' asserts herself sexually ('easy') may provoke indirect female aggression targetting her social value (slutshaming). Really, the world would look different if it was just a question of effectively attracting a mate. 

I would also agree that there is an element of optical illusion, but that doesn't necessarily make it dishonest deceit. I can see it is makeup, or that it is a stocking. I can see she wears high heels and I like how it affects her calves, her bum and tilts her pelvis and overall posture, although it can actually be harmful to her on the long term. But many women are prepared to sacrifice and suffer for beauty. Maybe a bit too much. You should try waxing, just for lolz. A girl once gave an impression of how that feels like, by ripping of a plaster she'd put on my upper leg. 
:shocked:

I have more arguments, but I'm lazy today. We could discuss body and facial hair, using braces as 'manipulation' of what is 'natural and real'. etc. It's really a weak if not ridiculous comparison with the PUA tactic to lie about social status, wealth and lifestyle (like the guy in the link I posted telling the girl he's going to Thailand in a week).


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

mimesis said:


> LOL, you argued that if Make Up wasn't deceptive, PUA tactics wasn't deceptive either, *because* they are both means to the (exact) same end.
> 
> So the premisse is "*if* the means have the exact same objective, *then* the means are equal/alike (deceptive, morally, whatever, it didn't make any sense what you said anyway)".
> 
> ...


This is kind of what I was actually thinking about the makeup comparison. By that logic, we should just as well be simple, dress boring monotone shirts and pants, not put on anything nor work out, as these are all deceptive as we are changing our appearances.

And it also gets a bit annoying, why is it that makeup is necessarily to attract other guys? The world doesn't revolve around men. Some women like to feel pretty, women can be aesthetic creatures that they like seeing themselves look good as well, just as someone who works out likes to see himself in a great shape. Meh, some guys might also like to look good that it boosts his mood and confidence.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> This is kind of what I was actually thinking about the makeup comparison. By that logic, we should just as well be simple, dress boring monotone shirts and pants, not put on anything nor work out, as these are all deceptive as we are changing our appearances.
> 
> And it also gets a bit annoying, why is it that makeup is necessarily to attract other guys? The world doesn't revolve around men. Some women like to feel pretty, women can be aesthetic creatures that they like seeing themselves look good as well, just as someone who works out likes to see himself in a great shape. Meh, some guys might also like to look good that it boosts his mood and confidence.


 Similarly, some men use PU skills like confidence, charm, and humor with other men, but it isn't the reason for its initial development nor is it utilized in that manner for primary reasons.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> x leads to z.
> y leads to z.
> So does x = y?


 It can. It doesn't have to, but it can. It certainly doesn't not have to.


VeraH said:


> Toyota is a car.
> Porsche is a car.
> Is Toyota a Porsche?


 No, but by both being a car, I can infer that they are extremely similar. Their similarities will far outweigh their differences.



VeraH said:


> Makeup (material, can be used to) attracts a mate.
> PU (actions, can be used to) attracts a mate.
> Is makeup the same as PU?


It's possible that they are, but it's also possible that they are not; but given the premise, it is impossible for the two to not be related.



VeraH said:


> The common denominator isn't deception, it's the person using makeup/PU tactics to their advantage. Intent matters. A guy using PUA has intent (100%). SOME guys who don't use PUA have intent. SOME girls wearing makeup have intent. SOME girls who don't wear makeup have intent.


 False. A girl with makeup most certainly has intent of some kind. If you argue that sometimes girls where makeup for reasons other than attracting a mate, then I would suggest you take notice that some PUAs use PU not to have sex, but also to teach through example or to make money.




VeraH said:


> And so the "slut-zone"...? A person's actions, resultant from their intentions, is resultant from their values, which is a reflection of who they are as a person.


 A similar comparison would be a girl (or guy) who is in a no strings attached friends with benefits situation. She doesn't become "slut-zoned" until she wants more from the relationship.




VeraH said:


> Then why put up with the BS? As for women, why put up with the BS? Your wellbeing is your responsibility. Even though I express my hate against poor-quality guys (people), how is that going to benefit me and society? It doesn't. The reality is: you need to own up to your shit, be pro-active about it, and improve yourself. Change you (everyone/anyone) because you can't change the world (in a day).


 I wouldn't put up with it now, but when I was younger I was convinced that those kind of relationships were the only ones which I deserved, and neither feminism nor the patriarchy had any problem with that whatsoever. Many other young men are now going through the same thing.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Same reason I hate French or American culture, the people in it.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

mimesis said:


> LOL, you argued that if Make Up wasn't deceptive, PUA tactics wasn't deceptive either, *because* they are both means to the (exact) same end.


 I've already stated that the ends are not the only similarity, and that I should have been more thorough in explaining that.




mimesis said:


> What you come up with now is a bit hilarious, as you just restated your opinion (that they are alike), you still didn't logically prove anything.


 And I never claimed that I would. It is rationally impossible to prove anything logically without assuming a premise. In order to use logic, you have to reach a conclusion based on previously accepted premises. If you want me to "logically prove" a premise, the we, yet again have to go further back to find a newly accepted premise. So your call for me to do what is rationally impossible to do is, in my opinion, hilarious.




mimesis said:


> So if you will, the assumption is that women use makeup to attract a mate. If that were true then only single, available women looking for a mate would wear make up right? They would not wear it when going to a meeting with females only. This is obviously not the case, which is I think enough to falsify that assertion.


 It's a straw man's assertion. You can use a wrench to swat a fly, that doesn't make it less of a wrench. Makeup and pickup can be used for other reasons, that doesn't negate the primary reason for why they exist.




mimesis said:


> Now I would agree on the point that make up is intended to be more attractive. Yet, the focus may not even be on attracting a mate as much as it is on competing attractivity with other women, to establish social value, comparable with men training their muscles, whether or not in combination with the use of anabolic steroids and other chemistry. (but that ain't manipulation right?)
> Steroids vs Natural: The Muscle Building Effects Of Steroid Use


 False assertion and misleading characterization. I've said nothing regarding steroids and muscles and its relationship to manipulation. Shame on you for implying otherwise.




mimesis said:


> If there is anything deceitful about it, it's perhaps in the 'openly' (perhaps self-) denial of women being competitive. 'I'm doing it for myself'. This explains why negging can be effective, like telling her she is just the third person he saw with that dress that night. It's I believe also why a woman who 'openly' asserts herself sexually ('easy') may provoke indirect female aggression targetting her social value (slutshaming). Really, the world would look different if it was just a question of effectively attracting a mate.


 Because social value plays no role in attracting a mate? Right?



mimesis said:


> I would also agree that there is an element of optical illusion, but that doesn't necessarily make it dishonest deceit. I can see it is makeup, or that it is a stocking. I can see she wears high heels and I like how it affects her calves, her bum and tilts her pelvis and overall posture, although it can actually be harmful to her on the long term. But many women are prepared to sacrifice and suffer for beauty. Maybe a bit too much. You should try waxing, just for lolz. A girl once gave an impression of how that feels like, by ripping of a plaster she'd put on my upper leg.
> :shocked:


 Anything done with the intent to deceive is inherently deceitful. It's impossible to get around that. That doesn't mean that there are no good reasons for being deceitful, people are deceitful all the time. Our language was developed with the intent to deceive (according to some researchers). 

If you were to make the argument that "Well okay, it's deceitful. So what? There's nothing wrong with that" then I wouldn't really contend that. The truth is that people deceive all the time. I never said that deceit was inherently wrong. The problem is that so many self-righteous posters assert that PUAs are deceitful as if they haven't told at least 35 lies today. I was simply pointing out that deceitfulness is everywhere, and that if you are going to go on a crusade against deceitfulness, then you'll have to have some consistency when doing it.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> I've already stated that the ends are not the only similarity, and that I should have been more thorough in explaining that.
> 
> And I never claimed that I would. It is rationally impossible to prove anything logically without assuming a premise. In order to use logic, you have to reach a conclusion based on previously accepted premises. If you want me to "logically prove" a premise, the we, yet again have to go further back to find a newly accepted premise. So your call for me to do what is rationally impossible to do is, in my opinion, hilarious.


Well if you insist I will explain again, the big picture.

1. You claimed A=B. Others disagreed.
2. Then later you argued: If A=0, then B=0, because they have the exact same cause.
or A=B is true, because they have the exact same cause.

Then I gave an example to show when two courses of action have the same cause, they are not necessarily alike, and can even be benevolent and malicious. Or A=1, B=0.

Anyway, so you said you should have been more thorough, but you end up exactly where you started, and you changed it but you were not making it more thorough, and your argument at 2. still doesn't hold. You changed from if A=0 then B=0 because of same cause, to A=0 --> C and B=0 --> C

In fact you said that I was being deceptive and trying to trick, because I used an example where A=/=B, in other words that didn't map your truth. So that's why I responded, and now I do it again. 

In fact the exact '*general*' cause you have used to argue A=B is true, is not very relevant, but you like to see *similarities* (that outweigh the *differences*, in other words) and *generalize*, so subsequently you can point at *inconsistenties*. _E.g. Hey you ate an apple that is fruit, but now you say you don't like orange and that is fruit too, so that is inconsistent. _That's your kind of reasoning (sort of), but you are not very critical to your own assumptions. It was also the point I wanted to make to you, try and differentiate more.

This is central in the discussions here, it keeps coming back on whether things are comparable or consistent. You started this thread because you want to know things but if you want to stick to your overgeneralizations, that's not really my problem. I can see it makes life seem more structured, but it doesn't make life easier, because you still end up not understanding the world, because it's so inconsistent to you. 



generalization said:


> A generalization (or generalisation) of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria. As such, they are the essential basis of all valid deductive inferences. The process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation.





hasty generalization said:


> Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

marked174 said:


> It's possible that they are, but it's also possible that they are not; but given the premise, it is impossible for the two to not be related.


Okay, how about:
North is a state of polarity.
South is a state of polarity.
So does north = south? 

The similarity (common denominator) is that they are under the category of polarity, though they are not the same (states). 



> A girl with makeup most certainly has intent of some kind. If you argue that sometimes girls where makeup for reasons other than attracting a mate, then I would suggest you take notice that some PUAs use PU not to have sex, but also to teach through example or to make money.


Honestly, I wear makeup because * I *want to look good for myself. Some days I look "dead". If someone agrees with my presentation, cool, thanks. What I do next, my actions, dictate the outcome. Guys have more leeway to look "dead" or rough to the general public, though they take care in their hair, cologne, and clothes. What they do next, their actions, dictate the outcome.

Well then, if his intent is to make money, build on his career, build on his esteem, where sex/attracting women is NOT the intent, *why* need PUA? Basically, he's engaging in self-development, the ethical approach to later landing a lady of the standard he wants.



> A similar comparison would be a girl (or guy) who is in a no strings attached friends with benefits situation. She doesn't become "slut-zoned" until she wants more from the relationship.


Yeah, I can get that. This is the difference, I believe anyway, between a guy trying to get a lay VS. girl "friend-zoning" a guy is as follows: 

The guy looking for sex can get just sex; there are women out there who share the same intent. Just sex, no strings. Leave the women who want commitment alone if you don't share the same intent; there is no excuse. (it's the equivalent to "friend-zoning" plus her body is used, double whammy).

The girl manipulating a guy under condition of "friend-zone" has no excuse. If she wants a complying person who she uses to tend to her needs, hire a servant who will put up with BS for pay. On the other hand, if she wants just sex, she can get just sex.



> I wouldn't put up with it now, but when I was younger I was convinced that those kind of relationships were the only ones which I deserved, and neither feminism nor the patriarchy had any problem with that whatsoever. Many other young men are now going through the same thing.


No, I don't agree with what's happened to you and I'm sorry to hear of that. I could have done same to a nicer guy, but I'm not able to. What happened to me also happens to other women, and I am solely responsible for my life and happiness. One bump passed. I'm not vengeful.

My understanding of feminism when it is said that man = woman, such that the woman can do anything a man can, it's the ultimate display of equal *rights* between the genders. 

Male is a gender.
Females is a gender.
So does male = female? Though it doesn't mean equal rights don't apply; the common denominator is that both are human. 

*All* humans deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, granted that they can provide same.

The modern "feminist" who pushes further to say that men are bad and women deserve more is not a feminist, but a man-hater.

Disclaimer: these are just my beliefs.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

mimesis said:


> In fact the exact '*general*' cause you have used to argue A=B is true, is not very relevant, but you like to see *similarities* (that outweigh the *differences*, in other words) and *generalize*, so subsequently you can point at *inconsistenties*. _E.g. Hey you ate an apple that is fruit, but now you say you don't like orange and that is fruit too, so that is inconsistent. _That's your kind of reasoning (sort of), but you are not very critical to your own assumptions. It was also the point I wanted to make to you, try and differentiate more.
> 
> This is central in the discussions here, it keeps coming back on whether things are comparable or consistent. You started this thread because you want to know things but if you want to stick to your overgeneralizations, that's not really my problem. I can see it makes life seem more structured, but it doesn't make life easier, because you still end up not understanding the world, because it's so inconsistent to you.


Actually it's more like:

Me: Why do you hate oranges so much?
Posters: Because oranges are fruit.
Me: So what? You like apples, and they are fruit too. 
Posters: *OMG! APPLES AREN'T ORANGES! DO YOU EVEN LOGIC BEFORE!*


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> Honestly, I wear makeup because * I *want to look good for myself.


 I seriously doubt that. Are you really telling me that you wear makeup on days that you spend alone in your house? If so, that puts you in the extreme minority. Makeup is for other people.



VeraH said:


> Yeah, I can get that. This is the difference, I believe anyway, between a guy trying to get a lay VS. girl "friend-zoning" a guy is as follows:
> 
> The guy looking for sex can get just sex;


 No they can't. That's your female privilege talking. If men don't have game, then they don't have pussy, period. If it were not so, the "slut-zone" would not even exist.



VeraH said:


> The girl manipulating a guy under condition of "friend-zone" has no excuse. If she wants a complying person who she uses to tend to her needs, hire a servant who will put up with BS for pay. On the other hand, if she wants just sex, she can get just sex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That's exactly right. Feminism sees equality when women can do anything a man can do, and completely ignores the the things that woman can do which men can not. It is a one-sided view of equality at best (which is the exact opposite of equality).


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

marked174 said:


> I seriously doubt that. Are you really telling me that you wear makeup on days that you spend alone in your house? If so, that puts you in the extreme minority. Makeup is for other people.


Same as why all people (including older grandma-aged ladies) who take care in their presentation to be socially accepted in the public sphere. Additionally, SOME people may dress to impress someone else to find a mate. On days I look fine, I don't wear makeup. Sometimes, I wear makeup to family gatherings where I know no potential mate will be there. It's intent and actions.



> No they can't. That's your female privilege talking. If men don't have game, then they don't have pussy, period. If it were not so, the "slut-zone" would not even exist.


Men say "no" to committment, women say "no" to sex. Though both can say either, it's just "tends to". 



> That's exactly right. Feminism sees equality when women can do anything a man can do, and completely ignores the the things that woman can do which men can not. It is a one-sided view of equality at best (which is the exact opposite of equality).


See above. Now you're veering into social stereotypes/perspectives/uniqueness of differences between men and women. Which is not what equality (fairness) is about. Can women grow a moustache/body-build? Can a man have a pair of breasts/wear a floral dress? Or rather, would it be socially accepted/"standard"? 



marked174 said:


> Actually it's more like:Me: Why do you hate oranges so much?Posters: Because oranges are fruit.Me: So what? You like apples, and they are fruit too. Posters: OMG! APPLES AREN'T ORANGES! DO YOU EVEN LOGIC BEFORE!


By your logic, north = south.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> Same as why all people (including older grandma-aged ladies) who take care in their presentation to be socially accepted in the public sphere. Additionally, SOME people may dress to impress someone else to find a mate. On days I look fine, I don't wear makeup. Sometimes, I wear makeup to family gatherings where I know no potential mate will be there. It's intent and actions.


 We've been over this. A wrench can be used to swat a fly, but it's not it's designed purpose.




VeraH said:


> Men say "no" to committment, women say "no" to sex. Though both can say either, it's just "tends to".


 Then don't say that men can get sex whenever they want, when they clearly cannot.



VeraH said:


> See above. Now you're veering into social stereotypes/perspectives/uniqueness of differences between men and women. Which is not what equality (fairness) is about. Can women grow a moustache/body-build? Can a man have a pair of breasts/wear a floral dress? Or rather, would it be socially accepted/"standard"?


No I'm not. When you said that "feminism sees equality when women can do anything a man can do" I didn't assume you were talking about growing mustaches. Why in the world would you think that I did? 



VeraH said:


> By your logic, north = south.


Me: Why do so many of you hate north?
You: Because it is a longitudinal direction.
Me: So what? South is one too, yet you don't hate south.
You: OMG! By your logic, north=south now.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> I seriously doubt that. Are you really telling me that you wear makeup on days that you spend alone in your house? If so, that puts you in the extreme minority. Makeup is for other people.


Women tend to be more aesthetically aware, whether it's about something in the surrounding environment or herself. They can like pretty stuffs including having themselves looking pretty. Maybe you can try to picture why women tend to care about home decor and matching stuffs, and tell the difference between two similar tones of red, while men tend to focus on a simple and functional home without caring about tone differences.

Just coz a woman does some makeup, elaborates a bit on her hair, or put on a nice dress, doesn't mean that she does it for others necessarily.



marked174 said:


> No they can't. That's your female privilege talking. If men don't have game, then they don't have pussy, period. If it were not so, the "slut-zone" would not even exist.


There is no real privilege, both men and women has to have desirable qualities in order to get sex if they want sex anyways. There has never been free meals in this world for either gender.


Also, @VeraH wrote:



VeraH said:


> The girl manipulating a guy under condition of "friend-zone" has no excuse. If she wants a complying person who she uses to tend to her needs, hire a servant who will put up with BS for pay. On the other hand, if she wants just sex, she can get just sex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And you quoted only the red part of the text and answered the following:



marked174 said:


> That's exactly right. Feminism sees equality when women can do anything a man can do, and completely ignores the the things that woman can do which men can not. It is a one-sided view of equality at best (which is the exact opposite of equality).


Her post was pretty fair on both genders, and even criticized modern feminism that accuses men of being bad as well as women who manipulate men into friendzone, yet you still grabbed the only part of the text that might have an opening and accused it as a one sided view of equality. :/


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

What was this thread about again?

I always thought that women were dressing/getting made up to pass the approval other women, not for men. I have heard women critiquing other women much more harshly than men ever would. /thread derail continued


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> Women tend to be more aesthetically aware, whether it's about something in the surrounding environment or herself. They can like pretty stuffs including having themselves looking pretty. Maybe you can try to picture why women tend to care about home decor and matching stuffs, and tell the difference between two similar tones of red, while men tend to focus on a simple and functional home without caring about tone differences.
> 
> Just coz a woman does some makeup, elaborates a bit on her hair, or put on a nice dress, doesn't mean that she does it for others necessarily.
> 
> ...


 It was a fair post, and I agreed with her assessment. I wasn't accusing her of being one-sided.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> It was a fair post, and I agreed with her assessment. I wasn't accusing her of being one-sided.


I see, guess I should have paid more attention, sorry for the misunderstanding and having said it in that manner.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> It's a straw man's assertion. You can use a wrench to swat a fly, that doesn't make it less of a wrench. Makeup and pickup can be used for other reasons, that doesn't negate the primary reason for why they exist.


I see your straw man argument is your last straw. I gave a reason why I don't think they are comparable, because the primary reason to wear make up, or even a desire to look sexy, is not because she needs to have sex with the intended target. I explained the target-group may just as well be other women, in the context of competition. And when I say competition, I mean to estimate your value in comparison to others (social value), in terms of attractiveness. So the purpose is self-esteem, but wearing make up can just as much be driven by a desire to be more attractive, as it can be driven by a fear of being less attractive.



marked174 said:


> False assertion and misleading characterization. I've said nothing regarding steroids and muscles and its relationship to manipulation. Shame on you for implying otherwise.


No indeed, you said nothing about it, I bring it in as an equivalent. Do you mind? I assume by this defensive response and trying to shame me, you took it very personally. I wasn't implying you use steroid, but I'm curious...do you? Would you admit when asked? Because that would be a difference with make up, in which case -I repeat- you can see it is make up, or high heels, or a corset. A better equivalent to steroids - on that criterion - would be fake eyelash or fake boobs. Although I've had sex once with a girl (from US) who had fake boobs, and that is perhaps the only time I felt somewhat deceived.

Not because her boobs were fake, just because they didn't feel as nice as real breasts. I also think boobs aren't supposed to 'stand up' when a woman lies on her back. But to be honest, I felt sorry for her, because she was nervous towards the inevitable 'discovery', and apologized the moment I felt her breast. I tried to reassure her saying it was ok, although tbh it wasn't ok, because it felt weird and a bit creepy, to feel an object under her skin, but she also guided my attention away from it, to other interesting parts of her body. I think it's sad because I would find her attractive also with small breasts. In my country it's not as 'normal' as it is in the US, and later she said she got it for her 16th birthday, and she did it because well, all the other girls did it (competition), but now she wished she hadn't done it. 

I think the comparison with steroids is valid, in many aspects. Firstly, it's 'cheating', but I don't mean so much to the woman he wants to attract, but towards competitors (other men), in particular those who train, but don't use doping. You don't even have to push weights to gain muscle, so it's an illusion of strength. As the author explains, as a side effect this raised the level playing field to 'superhuman', 'unnatural' or 'artificial', and caused others to use doping too, which btw involves possible unhealthy side-effects (set aside the possible side effect of aggressive behavior, and farts that are truly nauseating). Aside from that it's of course less artificial than silicon, and I doubt it matters much to women whether his muscles are just an illusion of power. 



marked174 said:


> Because social value plays no role in attracting a mate? Right?


Very good! 

Yes it is certainly related, because high social value is intuitively related to chance of survival and procreation of our genes.

So, that's why men tend to look at other men and women look at other women. You also turned to men to find out what attracts women, while here I've mostly noticed you question women's judgement. You don't see the difference between the illusion of makeup (or even steroids if you will) to establish social value that way, and blatantly lying to someone about social status and wealth. But you also don't see he is actually cheating on you as well, or advises others to, who may in fact be nothing more than you. 

And if he lies to women to get what he wants, what makes you think he is truthful to you and isn't making it look prettier to rip a buck from a bunch of insecure fellow men to who they say, "do you want to stay that Average Frustrated Chump (negging) or do you want to fuck girls like me (idealistic projection of prosperity)?"


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

mimesis said:


> I see your straw man argument is your last straw. I gave a reason why I don't think they are comparable, because the primary reason to wear make up, or even a desire to look sexy, is not because she needs to have sex with the intended target. I explained the target-group may just as well be other women, in the context of competition. And when I say competition, I mean to estimate your value in comparison to others (social value), in terms of attractiveness. So the purpose is self-esteem, but wearing make up can just as much be driven by a desire to be more attractive, as it can be driven by a fear of being less attractive.


 That still doesn't change the primary reason for its existence. 




mimesis said:


> No indeed, you said nothing about it, I bring it in as an equivalent. Do you mind? I assume by this defensive response and trying to shame me, you took it very personally. I wasn't implying you use steroid, but I'm curious...do you? Would you admit when asked?


 Ha. No. I don't take steroids. Except for one time in the emergency room; I had a bad reaction to a bug bite. The defensive response was born of an implication that I said something which I did not, coupled with the shock to the audacity you had to bring up an equivalent whilst simultaneously lecturing me for using equivalents.




mimesis said:


> Because that would be a difference with make up, in which case -I repeat- you can see it is make up, or high heels, or a corset. A better equivalent to steroids would be fake eyelash or fake boobs. Although I've had sex once with a girl (from US) who had fake boobs, and that is perhaps the only time I felt somewhat deceived.
> 
> Not because her boobs were fake, just because they didn't feel as nice as real breasts. I also think boobs aren't supposed to 'stand up' when a woman lies on her back. But to be honest, I felt sorry for her, because she was incredibly nervous towards the inevitable 'discovery', and apologized the moment I felt her breast. I tried to reassure her saying it was ok, although tbh it wasn't ok, because it felt weird and a bit creepy, to feel an object under her skin, but she also guided my attention away from it, to other interesting parts of her body. I think it's sad because I would find her attractive also with small breasts. In my country it's not as 'normal' as it is in the US, and later she said she got it for her 16th birthday, and she did it because well, all the other girls did it (competition), but now she wished she hadn't done it.


 That is truly interesting (not sarcasm). Some interesting insights in that story.




mimesis said:


> I think the comparison with steroids is valid, in many aspects. Firstly, it's cheating, but not so much to the woman he wants to attract, but towards competitors (other men), in particular those who train, but don't use doping. You don't even have to push weights to gain muscle, so it's an illusion of strength. As the author explains, as a side effect this raised the level playing field to 'superhuman', 'unnatural' or 'artificial', and caused others to use doping too, which btw involves possible unhealthy side-effects (set aside the possible side effect of aggressive behavior, and farts that are truly nauseating). Aside from that it's of course less artificial than silicon, and I doubt it matters much to women whether his muscles are just an illusion of power.


 As the issue of makeup is clearly engaging, coupled with a male equivalence found in steroids, I will most likely make my next thread about how we "cheat" in these ways and in the impact it has on our expectations. 

However, my initial point was to how makeup is deceitful, and how it is an acceptable deceit when compared to PU. There are, of course, other ways which it is harmful as well.




mimesis said:


> Very good!
> 
> Yes it is certainly related, because high social value is intuitively related to chance of survival and procreation of our genes.
> 
> ...


I don't. I never claimed PUAs were honest, just that they weren't the only ones with their hands dirty.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> No they can't. That's your female privilege talking. If men don't have game, then they don't have pussy, period. If it were not so, the "slut-zone" would not even exist.


Boy, it just crossed my mind wondering why these PUAistas are so anti-feminist, but a common enemy creates a bond and can instill blind trust (just history repeating), but also makes their adepts suspicious of what women say, so they can say all the bullshit they find convenient.

Women are not privileged, that's a load of crap. The only 'privilege' they have is that they are sure to procreate their genes, if they get pregnant. Men on the other hand have the privilege to try and bet on any woman that _looks_ healthy they can get their hands on, without needing to be interrupted and limited by the burden of a physically heavy 9 month pregnancy, which makes it harder to take care of yourself. And as you can only get pregnant by one at a time, obviously a woman needs to bet on the best genes she can get her hands on. It's a responsibility. 

But I'm curious why wouldn't the slutzone even exist? (and if what wasn't true? the privilege or game?)


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

So has this thread devolved into a discussion about feminism and all that yet?


----------



## dalex (May 26, 2012)

PUA is a scam, its a silly industry that rapes the souls of men, and hangs their moral worth on a noose. Besides why are people still talking about PUA, its not 2006 anymore. Its no longer culturally relevant, but one can argue that its transformed outdated dating advice that mothers have traditionally given to their sons. Either ways they're both poisons that should be ignored regardless of the intentions given.

When I first stumbled onto PUA, I thought it was cool since it gave me courage to approach women. However, due to me being a moron, I adhered to it too much, and repelled some cute girls that were into me. Now I have no courage and I feel like a scumbag each time that I come across the girls that I approached. Currently my approaches are normal, my conversations are ordinary, and there is no supplication in order to "create attraction." A girl is into you at first sight or she's not, unless you have Ferrari around the corner. 

A lot of the men I know harbor resentment against women, in one way or another. They're decent looking guys for the most part, but are not financially successful, mature (older age +25). I'm youthful, I'm inexperienced, and worst of all I'm mediocre, no woman at the prime of her beauty would dare waste time on schmuck like me. Guess what type of women I attract? Average to good looking women depending on their age. Women my age and older don't give me the time of their day, but something magical happens when I pursue women that are at least 2 years younger; I actually start getting positive responses.

Anyhow these are blogs that dedicate to debunk PUA, and even go as far to ridicule it.
http://anti-pua-johnny.blogspot.de/
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2013/10/friendships-in-real-world.html
The Black Pill | There is no personal solution to systemic problems, and feminism/women is a systemic problem.
Nigel's Big Game Blog | Loving larger women. Fat acceptance. Seduction.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

marked174 said:


> We've been over this. A wrench can be used to swat a fly, but it's not it's designed purpose.


Makeup > worn/applied > enhances aesthetic appeal of woman. 
Clothes/style > worn/applied > enhances aesthetic appeal of man.

Both intend to look presentable to their liking and to the world. Not everyone seeks a relationship. Though SOME intend to attract a mate. PUA is 100% to attract women via whatever means, be it self-improvement (under PUA wrongful guidance). 



> Then don't say that men can get sex whenever they want, when they clearly cannot.


You were talking about female priveledges (sp?). Which is that we can refuse sex. Sure. 
What about male priveledges (sp?). Which is that you can refuse commitment. 
Though it could be vice versa, but this *tends* to be the trend. 

Further, I want a million dollars today, can I please, please get a million dollars today? No, son/girly, you can't, don't pout. Find a way to achieve it (hopefully via the right/ethical way). 



> No I'm not. When you said that "feminism sees equality when women can do anything a man can do" I didn't assume you were talking about growing mustaches. Why in the world would you think that I did?


 is your reply to mine, which was a reply to this:


> Feminism sees equality when women can do anything a man can do, and completely ignores the the *things that woman can do which men can not. I*t is a one-sided view of equality at best (which is the exact opposite of equality).


Which is withhold sex? You are aware that guys are capable of doing same, right? However, guys *tend to* withhold from commitment/relationship, which I don't find is wrong, so long as you're upfront about it. I don't find anything wrong with a woman refusing sex, so long as she doesn't use the guy to fulfill her other needs and giving him hope/stringing him along.

Further, men and women ARE different. That was what I was trying to demonstrate, though equality of rights can exist. Man/woman desire X. 

X means sex/commitment. 



> Me: Why do so many of you hate north?
> You: Because it is a longitudinal direction.
> Me: So what? South is one too, yet you don't hate south.
> You: OMG! By your logic, north=south now.


Exactly, I don't hate south because north =/= south. Makeup =/= PUA. 
I like makeup (which can be used to enhance one's appeal), I hate PUA (which can be used to enhance one's appeal).


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

marked174 said:


> We've been over this. A wrench can be used to swat a fly, but it's not it's designed purpose.


Ah no, you have yet to give any argument why your assumption is valid.  

Designed purpose, you say? Does it matter what it was designed for?


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

VeraH said:


> You were talking about female priveledges (sp?). Which is that we can refuse sex. Sure.
> What about male priveledges (sp?). Which is that you can refuse commitment.
> Though it could be vice versa, but this *tends* to be the trend.
> 
> ...


 I wasn't referring to withholding sex when I spoke of "things women can do that men can't". As you correctly pointed out, men can do that too.






VeraH said:


> Exactly, I don't hate south because north =/= south. Makeup =/= PUA.
> I like makeup (which can be used to enhance one's appeal), I hate PUA (which can be used to enhance one's appeal).


Fine. Then why do you hate PUA? (protip: it isn't because they are deceptive, unless a double standard is present).


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Fine. Then why do you hate PUA? (protip: it isn't because they are deceptive, unless a double standard is present).


I think that we are going into a loop here.

Your side says: makeup = deception, PUA = deception, therefore makeup = PUA in terms of manipulativeness

Other side says: makeup = visual enhancing not always done for men, similar to men dressing well or using perfume/deodorant or enhancing physical look, or just a small deception (unless we are talking about complete makeups like those famous befores and afters lol even I'd be scared of that), PUA = deception tricking women into sex while viewing them negatively, therefore makeup is not comparable to PUA as PUA is much worse (rather comparable to women tricking men to friendzone or gold diggers than makeup)


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

dalex said:


> PUA is a scam, its a silly industry that rapes the souls of men, and hangs their moral worth on a noose. Besides why are people still talking about PUA, its not 2006 anymore. Its no longer culturally relevant, but one can argue that its transformed outdated dating advice that mothers have traditionally given to their sons. Either ways they're both poisons that should be ignored regardless of the intentions given.
> 
> When I first stumbled onto PUA, I thought it was cool since it gave me courage to approach women. However, due to me being a moron, I adhered to it too much, and repelled some cute girls that were into me. Now I have no courage and I feel like a scumbag each time that I come across the girls that I approached. Currently my approaches are normal, my conversations are ordinary, and there is no supplication in order to "create attraction." A girl is into you at first sight or she's not, unless you have Ferrari around the corner.
> 
> ...


I have noticed something similar in that 16 year old girls seem to find me attractive, for whatever reason. 

Too bad they're not 18...

EDIT: or maybe I'm on some weird version of the Truman show and they're trying to put me in jail to see what will happen...


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

PUA is dumb, it'll happen if and when it happens, she'll make herself presentable for you.........and for me it's happening right now, especially after Friday. But, so anyhow, don't be a jerk on the way to that destination.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Are people actually comparing make up to this so-called PUA culture?

Make up is not emotionally manipulative.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

marked174 said:


> I've recently been seeing a lot of negativity surrounding PUAs, and I'd like to know what's so irritating about them. I have some ideological differences in values from them, but many here can't stand them.
> 
> What's so wrong about PUAs?


Because it's superficial, dishonest, misleading (in how "well" it works and to the people it's being used on), manipulative, demeaning.... Do I really need to go on?

For a case-in-point reason, just look at "negging" - insulting a woman to manipulate her emotions and make her want to earn your approval so that you can *ta da* manipulate her some more.

And whoever said men can't manipulate women, you don't have a clue.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

I have no issue if they're honest, which almost none of them are. I've met a few guys who are like, "Hey, I'm into casual sex and I find you attractive, so I will try to pick you up." Love those guys. We often become friends but never date. People who try to pick me up with deceit, though... those are the worst kind of people, people who prey on others' emotions.


----------



## INFPLeadership (Nov 4, 2013)

Seems to cheesy to me.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

They basically are Pick Up Artists.

I think that a lot of aspiring PUA's want to be more like these guys. PUA's like these guys have no intention of ruining your lives through you vaginas...


----------



## Falling Leaves (Aug 18, 2011)

I personally find it highly insulting that PUAs place me in a woman-shaped box and make assumptions about my personality or behaviours. To them, I'm not an individual, I'm prey.


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

If somebody I know is a decent person that person can use every technique possible to get me to like them.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

I love it, I love the game, it's amusing.


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

This is my deduction.
1. This community contain majority Introvert coupled with Think IxTx Strong in Ni, Fi, decent Si
2. PUA reliying mostly on Se, Ne , and Fe function
3. Fair if i say people in this Personality Cafe mostly not PUA
4. And psychologically, people are less likely to agree with people who are very different from them.


----------



## WillyT (Jul 22, 2013)

L said:


> They basically are Pick Up Artists.
> 
> I think that a lot of aspiring PUA's want to be more like these guys. PUA's like these guys have no intention of ruining your lives through you vaginas...


Wow, what a touching video. I'm sure this will score big-time with the ladies.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Still laughing at the guy who said it's "morally corrosive". what the fuck does that even mean?

PUA gets hate for many reasons. Personally, it's the Alpha-wannabes that get to me. Half of them are just your average fedora wearers. Then you have the trying to hard types. These are the most fun to mess with.
I even make a game out of messing with these guys when I meet them. Shits hilarious.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Splash Shin said:


> Still laughing at the guy who said it's "morally corrosive". what the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> PUA gets hate for many reasons. Personally, it's the Alpha-wannabes that get to me. Half of them are just your average fedora wearers. Then you have the trying to hard types. These are the most fun to mess with.
> I even make a game out of messing with these guys when I meet them. Shits hilarious.


I'm considering starting a thread about this, what's with all the hatin' on fedora hats!?


----------



## Spanks (Dec 8, 2013)

The pickup community isn't all that bad from an ideological sense. It's about self-improvement. The only thing that gives it a bad wrap in my eyes is the majority of people who are douchebags and get into it for the wrong reasons (ie: sex).


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Whenever you pick up women, you are being a pickup artist. You are pushing her buttons in a way that you may even be unaware, but those buttons are what, essentially "pick her up" or get her turned off, decide you are a creep, whatever.

That being said, MOST of the PUA stuff on the internet is, in my eyes, deceptive and manipulative. I can't do that. I don't want to base any relationship off of deception or manipulation. Even IF the vast majority of that PUA stuff works.

Either way, "picking up" women is, in a sense, a game. All the right moves, you win, a couple of wrong moves, you lose.

That's my take on it. I don't like the "pickup" culture. The fact that some girls are so formulaic to "pick up" makes me uninterested in them anyways.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I was watching a video of a PUA tease. I don't want to defend PUA,but in this one instance, its a universal video, script, this one was on "how to pick up women," but there's also topics like, "how never to get a heart attack," "how to invest your money"I'm going to tell you why I hate PUA,but first,remember back to your school days when the teacher would keep on talking and talking, and you're half way to sleepyville, and you're thinking, get to the point, well I won't waste your time in my PerC response. And the script is sort of like that, if you keep watching my video a little bit longer, you'll get women in bed like that, about 20 per month. And it's this big time consuming doodle, he's doing. I watched the PUA version of that, and when I found it was a bullshit time waster, I turned it off. YOLO. Thats why I hate PUA type internet videos.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

I hate PUA culture because it's disingenuous, because it coaches men not to be their true selves but to be obnoxious players and because it treats women like prey or trophies. I like men who are authentic and who treat me based on the way they have gotten to know me genuinely rather than centred on how a presumptuous system instructs them on how to treat me based on crude generalities. Not to mention the romantic games PUA strategies suggest are annoying and waste my time; I have always lost my interest in men who chase and then suddenly withdraw to look cool or desirable. I like men who are consistent and authentic and I have not been disappointed in that I have found such a person. PUA tactics are in my mind either a myth or a way to catch exceptionally easy girls.


----------



## Bat (Jul 21, 2012)

I don't give it enough weight to hate it. I just don't think too highly of anyone deceiving, manipulating, using and possibly hurting someone else for the sole purpose of self-gratification, whether men or women. If someone is studying PUA philosophies for that purpose, yeah, he's pretty much setting himself up as a type of weak-charactered con man. Who can really respect that, other than fellow weak-charactered con men?


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

I don't hate it, I just find it pathetic. So.. more like pity? "Yes, yes, of course it's a nice neg, Dear." kind of thing. Just more uncomfortable.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

I don't see the logic in why people hate the PUA culture, isn't every man who desires a woman a PUA... It's a different path to the same destination. 

Talking & getting to know women is fun & allows me to be myself when i'm not working. The alternative is being a zombie who lives in their own bubble, seeing a beautiful woman & just letting her walk by, feeling regret of not conquering the unknown, having what if in their head... that's just not me.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I don't hate PUAs. granted
- I disapprove of some of their tactics
- many of them seem rather pathetic
- they're probably not going to find a meaningful relationship that way

but, if you're nerdy, socially anxious and unattractive and all you're wanting is a hot piece of ass for the night, why wouldn't you be a PUA? I'm not saying it's a choice between manipulation or celibacy, but if it were, I'd choose manipulation any day of the goddamn week.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

^ Obviously unattractive women can't use this technique, though. It wouldn't work and I believe 99% of women aren't that pathethic, immature or selfish to manipulate people, in the style of a pick up 'artist'(cringe), anyway.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> ^ Obviously unattractive women can't use this technique, though. It wouldn't work and I believe 99% of women aren't that pathethic, immature or selfish to manipulate people, in the style of a pick up 'artist'(cringe), anyway.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk


99% of women aren't pathetic, immature or selfish to manipulate people. You must live in a bubble.


----------



## iloveusarita (Nov 9, 2013)

Depends.

PUA is pseudo-psychology that doesn't work.

PUAs are sociopaths, well based on their Youtube vids. they see the world seemingly in a formulaic sense, there is no warmth or heart. The only PUA is respect is Kezia Noble, at least she highlights a human angle. 

Dating coaching in general uses cliches, subjective thoughts about how humans behave, and inaccurate rules of thumb.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> ^ Obviously unattractive women can't use this technique, though. It wouldn't work and I believe 99% of women aren't that pathethic, immature or selfish to manipulate people, in the style of a pick up 'artist'(cringe), anyway.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk


Women are not above men when it comes to being "moral." Both sexes are capable of manipulation for selfish reasons, and if you've never seen a woman manipulate someone to get what they want, you're either lying or you're the only woman you know.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

MisterD said:


> 99% of women aren't pathetic, immature or selfish to manipulate people. You must live in a bubble.


I meant, in a style like a 'PUA' would or would label themselves a title like that. 

Yeah of course some women manipulate, they don't call themselves 'artists' for it. And men who play games like that deserve a taste of their own medicine if they're getting manipulated back.

And there was no need for that last comment.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> ^ Obviously unattractive women can't use this technique, though. *It wouldn't work and I believe 99% of women aren't that pathethic, immature or selfish to manipulate people, in the style of a pick up 'artist'(cringe), anyway*.
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk


frankly, regardless of your views on PUA, saying 99% of people of either gender aren't immature is ridiculous.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

MisterD said:


> I don't see the logic in why people hate the PUA culture, isn't every man who desires a woman a PUA... It's a different path to the same destination.
> 
> Talking & getting to know women is fun & allows me to be myself when i'm not working. The alternative is being a zombie who lives in their own bubble, seeing a beautiful woman & just letting her walk by, feeling regret of not conquering the unknown, having what if in their head... that's just not me.


PUA is not about getting to know women. It's superficial. It's taking something real and making a shadow that mimics it in a hideously cheapened way.


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Some claim that's not the reason, but rather to help guys develop and find love. Regardless, how is it any less manipulative than cosmetics or anything else that claims to make people more attractive?


Cosmetics are often used more for social reasons than sexual reasons.


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

Kanerou said:


> Why do we hate PUA culture?
> 
> Douchebags
> like
> ...


I actually almost feel like there was a shift in my values upon reading that, but I'm unable to determine the source.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

William I am said:


> PUA is not about getting to know women. It's superficial. It's taking something real and making a shadow that mimics it in a hideously cheapened way.


It's like everything else in American society now. How many ads online proclaim, "Follow this one ridiculously easy trick to do XXXXXX." It's all about superficial shortcuts.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Wh1zkey said:


> I hate the pick-up artist term, though my couple buddies and I get labeled as one. To us, we assume that women love sex but too afraid to show it since they might be labeled as sluts. So we help beautiful women like you out there by helping them open up to us and let ourselves take it from there, satisfying both of our needs. Win-win situation. No feelings harmed.


Is that what you like to tell your self? That if you feel ok about it then no feelings are harmed? Do you even care, or notice if you hurt other people?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

android654 said:


> Holy shit... Thats the best way I've started my day in a long time. Seriously, a tight bear hug for that link. I was tearing.


There's nothing more fantastic than a man begging for sex and soliciting prostitution on A CHRISTIAN DATING SITE and acting cowed and calling the woman "fat" (forever the easy insult) when she said she would tell his mom.

Unbelievable that people on the PUA chat box there see him as the victim. Unbelievable.


----------



## Spanks (Dec 8, 2013)

SharpestNiFe said:


> Whenever you pick up women, you are being a pickup artist. You are pushing her buttons in a way that you may even be unaware, but those buttons are what, essentially "pick her up" or get her turned off, decide you are a creep, whatever.
> 
> That being said, MOST of the PUA stuff on the internet is, in my eyes, deceptive and manipulative. I can't do that. I don't want to base any relationship off of deception or manipulation. Even IF the vast majority of that PUA stuff works.
> 
> ...


Tell me, how does it feel knowing that any future and past relationship of yours were and will be with people susceptible to pickup? Your mother is susceptible to pickup. Your grandma is susceptible to pickup. Your daughter will be susceptible to pickup. All girls are susceptible to pickup.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Spanks said:


> Tell me, how does it feel knowing that any future and past relationship of yours were and will be with people susceptible to pickup? Your mother is susceptible to pickup. Your grandma is susceptible to pickup. Your daughter will be susceptible to pickup. All girls are susceptible to pickup.


I'm very well aware of all that. I even know the story of how my mom was picked up by my dad. I'm certain that every nuclear family knows how their mother was "picked up" by their father. Ladies have their triggers.

I'm fully aware that if I decide to go down the path of having a family and am blessed with daughters that there will be guys trying to "pick them up." It would be my job, as a father, to love my daughters and respect them as young ladies so they are fully aware of how a man should treat them. Girls with good relationships with their fathers (no "daddy issues") tend to have more respect for themselves. So when a guy "picks her up," I'm sure she'll allow it if she likes the guy and, first and foremost, he RESPECTS her.

So yes, I think all fathers of daughters have their jobs cut out for them, and I SEE girls that have daddy issues and the product of their daddy issues (I actually dated a couple in the past who thought I was some "perfect rom-com guy" because they never really got that respect from men before, it was foreign to them).


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> Cosmetics are often used more for social reasons than sexual reasons.


Social acceptance/ expectations, yeah. Looks are associated with roles, people expect you to look a certain way, or vice versa-- if you look a certain way people associate you with a specific role/status. Makeup is more like clothes than PUA, that way. But this is a full thread worth of discussion by itself.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I think that this thread may outlive us all.

*Somebody hold me*

:crying:


----------



## Starlequin (Nov 28, 2012)

It makes me sad that any man would have to rely on tactics and strategy rather than his own charisma to charm a lady into a romantic encounter. So sad that I might almost be inclined to pity-fuck such a guy...... but not quite. Well maybe if I just needed to get off and it was as meaningless to me as it was to him. Also, if I were drunk that might influence my decision.

On some level, I don't like it because it suggests that you really don't like yourself or you don't like women. That's probably what you need to work on rather than self-medicating by sexual encounters.


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

Starlequin said:


> It makes me sad that any man would have to rely on tactics and strategy rather than his own charisma to charm a lady into a romantic encounter. So sad that I might almost be inclined to pity-fuck such a guy...... but not quite. Well maybe if I just needed to get off and it was as meaningless to me as it was to him. Also, if I were drunk that might influence my decision..


----------



## Starlequin (Nov 28, 2012)

I love this movie!! And there's always a chance.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Starlequin said:


> It makes me sad that any man would have to rely on tactics and strategy rather than his own charisma to charm a lady into a romantic encounter. So sad that I might almost be inclined to pity-fuck such a guy...... but not quite. Well maybe if I just needed to get off and it was as meaningless to me as it was to him. Also, if I were drunk that might influence my decision.
> 
> On some level, I don't like it because it suggests that you really don't like yourself or you don't like women. That's probably what you need to work on rather than self-medicating by sexual encounters.


Do be fair, not everyone has charm and charisma.


----------



## Starlequin (Nov 28, 2012)

android654 said:


> Do be fair, not everyone has charm and charisma.


I guess relying on the tactics and strategy might help build confidence that could lead to some innate charisma?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Starlequin said:


> I guess relying on the tactics and strategy might help build confidence that could lead to some innate charisma?


Well, it's my opinion that some people just don't have much in the way of personality, not everyone is engaging or interesting, magnetic or capable. There are some people who, unfortunately, are going to be stuck in the realm of needing to rely on tricks and manipulation because they themselves aren't very attractive on a superficial or substantial level. I think things like this has the greatest appeal for people like that.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

because the goal of pua is to be a con artist to gain confidence in order to then stop being a con artist

other people like to do it the more honest way

however, fuck it, its fun and i enjoy it at the times i dabble *shrugs


----------



## Fuzzyslug (Aug 12, 2011)

I saw a guy going through the motions of PUA, it was awful.
Cringe-city material, you could feel how uncomfortable the girl was.
I wanted to drop off a copy of The Game by Neil Strauss into her lap.
He was just going around asking anyone and everyone around, laying on the cheese.
Hell after I left with my girlfriend he later approached her the same way.
This was all in a book store after leaving the cafe area where he initiated contact with his next victim.

That's just my opinion though... :tongue:


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

Fuzzyslug said:


> I saw a guy going through the motions of PUA, it was awful.
> Cringe-city material, you could feel how uncomfortable the girl was.
> I wanted to drop off a copy of The Game by Neil Strauss into her lap.
> He was just going around asking anyone and everyone around, laying on the cheese.
> ...


that's how it is when you live in anti-social society.

"People are having fun? STOP IT AT ONCE"


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

android654 said:


> Do be fair, not everyone has charm and charisma.


I beg to differ. Everyone has charm & charisma in their own fucked up way, it's just up to you to make them comfortable enough around you to open up to you & be them self.

I find the beauty in everyone & do my best to understand a person's motive in life.

Everyone has something in them that's pretty unique. I guess if the person doesn't express them self & isn't true to their ways, it doesn't apply.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

MisterD said:


> I beg to differ. Everyone has charm & charisma in their own fucked up way, *it's just up to you to make them comfortable enough around you to open up to you & be them self.*
> 
> I find the beauty in everyone & do my best to understand a person's motive in life.
> 
> Everyone has something in them that's pretty unique. I guess if the person doesn't express them self & isn't true to their ways, it doesn't apply.


I believe the bold may be true in some circumstances, for some people, some of the time.

As for the rest--it's bullshit. No, not everyone has a special something inside them that makes them unique and appealing if only you got to know them. The concept of "special" and "unique" exists by its rarity and exclusivity when compared to the population at large. Most people are people without major troubles fitting in with little trouble. Even if you look at statistics in MBTI [http://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/] you see that stereotypes along gender lines, making the majority more comfortable to fit in, to be generic for lack of a better word. Truly unique people are rare and get ostracized because of it.

Now, regarding being attractive and magnetic when looking for mates, dates, fuckbuddies, it is simpler than people make it out to be as most people go for the best at the moment rather than the best they every encountered. When that is the case it isn't difficult to shine above the competition and gain someone's attention. But, even when that is the case, not everyone is attractive. Some people truly are uninteresting and disinterested in being charming or having a presence of any kind, and are happy that way. And for some people that will be enough for them to consider someone as a potential partner or the body of choice of the night. Even with that realization, it is not only untrue but harmful to claim that everybody is special and everyone has a compelling story to tell simply because they are people. It simply is not the case and perpetuating stereotypes, not matter how much sugar they're laced with, doesn't help people, it hinders them and instills false narratives that breed negative attitudes. 

It's because of thoughts like this, the concept of the SSS that leads "nice guys" to think that they're the shit and duck-faced girls on facebook to think that they're glamorous.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

android654 said:


> I believe the bold may be true in some circumstances, for some people, some of the time.
> 
> As for the rest--it's bullshit. No, not everyone has a special something inside them that makes them unique and appealing if only you got to know them. The concept of "special" and "unique" exists by its rarity and exclusivity when compared to the population at large. Most people are people without major troubles fitting in with little trouble. Even if you look at statistics in MBTI [http://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/] you see that stereotypes along gender lines, making the majority more comfortable to fit in, to be generic for lack of a better word. Truly unique people are rare and get ostracized because of it.
> 
> ...


different view on the world, just not me.


----------



## Fuzzyslug (Aug 12, 2011)

MisterD said:


> that's how it is when you live in anti-social society.
> 
> "People are having fun? STOP IT AT ONCE"


Sorry I don't follow your logic. Where exactly are you getting it that people in this context were having fun, unless you are referring to the person initiating the PUA methods?

What exactly do you mean when you say an 'anti-social society'? Are you referring to being in a cafe at the time, as if that bypasses social niceties of personal boundaries?

Further context of the situation was she was studying, just because it's a cafe doesn't mean a person wants to be bothered (this is probably an introverted bias).

Please illuminate me on what you're trying to convey here, less I consider it trolling.


----------



## bengalcat (Dec 8, 2010)

PUA dirtbag Heartiste derides creepy Facebook stalker for being too chivalrous | man boobz

Heartiste blog post is easily found when searched for.

Another PUA artist's thoughts:

http://manboobz.com/2013/12/30/retu...otings-because-they-wont-have-sex-with-nerds/


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

If you've ever been the victim of PUA charades, you'd understand what's wrong with it.


----------

