# Pua hate dot com



## SnowFairy (Nov 21, 2011)

fourtines said:


> PUA Hate


I just thought I'd put out a warning that the anti-virus software on my computer gave me a "Dangerous Site" warning (for possible malware and spyware) and blocked me from the page when I tried to open this link...

And, no, I don't think the software was being hypersensitive. It rarely does that, so I trust it when it does.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

William I am said:


> Yeah, that PUA stuff is not just stupid, it's sad and degrading to women. The worst part is when it works for people because it's preying on people who have low self-esteem.
> One of my friends bought a book and tried to get me into it and I was like "...no. Just no for a hundred reasons. That's so not me."
> 
> I could never enjoy picking someone up by making negative comments. That's borderline abuse and codependency, and I've been on the receiving end of that shit. Never will I expose someone else to that intentionally, and I could never enjoy sex with someone met through emotional manipulation.
> ...


You seem to have a misconception of what seduction actually is.

EDIT: Here's a good read, comparison of established psychological knowledge to skills employed within the seduction community.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10899909.pdf


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

No, thanks. I'm not interested in it. It's not a community any more than people running pyramid schemes are a community. 
It's exploitation, and it's twisted and wrong. 

Seduction and Pick Up "Artistry" are far different things.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

William I am said:


> No, thanks. I'm not interested in it. It's not a community any more than people running pyramid schemes are a community.
> It's exploitation, and it's twisted and wrong.
> 
> Seduction and Pick Up "Artistry" are far different things.


So you're not even going to bother reading the article I posted?

Solid kneejerk reaction though. The fact of the matter is that these skills are good for both men and women and more often than not have a positive impact on many peoples lives.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Nope. Thanks, but no thanks, I'm not interested in hearing arguments in favor of it, nor in voluntarily spending my time reading an article on it.
The reactions I've seen to it (though they're anecdotal, they are consistent) didn't seem to be positive.

As for it being a reaction, I did respond quickly, but for all you know I'm just sure of my convictions from past consideration.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

William I am said:


> Nope. Thanks, but no thanks, I'm not interested in hearing arguments in favor of it, nor in voluntarily spending my time reading an article on it.
> The reactions I've seen to it (though they're anecdotal, they are consistent) didn't seem to be positive.
> 
> As for it being a reaction, I did respond quickly, but for all you know I'm just sure of my convictions from past consideration.


Rather close minded to not even read an article from a respected peer reviewed site based around evolutionary psychology.

I doubt they're from past consideration, considering you're gender it is unlikely you've had a PUA try and seduce you...


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I think one of the big problems with PUA is that it's not about "oh, well why does some of this stuff work on women?" It's about figuring out crap that you can use to manipulate women, who you are not personally interested in (and who are not personally interested in you), into having sex with you.

The whole philosophy is based on that, so even if women "grow wise" to PUA tactics, it won't matter because the PUA philosophy is about utilizing any tactics to manipulate women into sex. It's about using "what works" to trick a stranger who you do not understand into having sex with you. 

People can argue that the problem is that women are susceptible--no. Sorry. The problem is that it's not conducive to true human intimacy. The problem is in the way that PUA defines women. Don't deflect the problem from the predator to the prey ("predator and prey" being defined by my interpretation of PUA tactics--not as some general assertion about gender dynamics).

I think fourteens illustrated this problem well when she talked about the 1-10 scale. Why does one need to be with an arbitrary "10"? It doesn't have anything to do with compatibility or true interest in the person, but it's reducing a woman into a number to justify using whatever manipulation to achieve conquest.

Any kind of lasting or meaningful intimacy is defined by achieving understanding of each other--accepting and understanding the other's perspective. PUA doesn't teach that.

I have no problem with people trying to be attractive to others who they might be interested in. But the way that PUA rates women shows that it isn't about who one is interested in, but some stupid, objective rating--so it is about achieving conquest over a number. That's not intimacy and it's not a fair way to interact with other people.

Edit: If I was a guy I might be all over PUA. Seduction is fun. But one has to ask why it is fun--what is the point? Human intimacy is about more than sex. Reducing another person into a sexual object is mean.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

It's not as closed minded as you think. I've entertained the idea, explored it, turned it over in my mind, and decided it's not a good thing.
As far as not knowing what seduction is, being picked up is hardly the same as being seduced. 
Now, will you stop trying to goad me into reading it or fighting with you? I disagree with you on a fundamental level; there's nothing any expert with any qualifications can say that will change my mind. I don't need to have been picked up to have considered it. 

You're making an appeal to authority instead of making an argument. If you want to make an argument, make one here.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

William I am said:


> You're making an appeal to authority instead of making an argument. If you want to make an argument, make one here.


Fine, I'll spell it out for you.

PUA does not use manipulation to get women into bed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is misinformed or has only ever had contact with assholes. It simply quantifies what human beings are attracted to, (ie confidence, charm, humour), and teaches people to employ these techniques in certain situations. In fact many sources talk about "Inner game", how you have to stay true to yourself and be a decent person before working on your "outer game", which is applied not just to women, but to all areas of life so that a person can lead a happier one.

The article I posted simply points out how this community has quantified and applied certain things known to psychologists for a long time.

Also, an appeal to authority is still inductive. It only becomes fallacious when use non subject matters/experts.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

PUA-ing is an abuse of psychology. Any person who reads a description of "neg-ing" can see that it's manipulative. The idea behind the whole system is to hurt someone so you can make them need you to make them feel better, and thus make them want to be around you and give you what you want. 

"Inner game" is just a red herring to reduce peoples' cognitive dissonance about manipulating other people. Not being conflicted makes it easier to appear confident and to go for broke without hesitation.

I have an AA (I have 3 actually, and am about to have a BA) in behavioural and social science, and I've read portions of "the game", watched part of the series, and been exposed to other PUA materials. My experience is not limited to assholes, and my information came straight from the source. 

Similarly to PUA-ing, we could quantify what different personality types are attracted to and use that to invent "techniques". The techniques are ways to exploit peoples' tendencies, to exploit psychological principles and data, and it is unethical.
Maybe it would be more clear if we spelled out what the techniques are for and didn't shorten it to the single word. 

What are the techniques for?


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Why is the PUAtraining.com okay for me to browse through, but the PUAhate.com, the supposedly good guys that provide a safe haven for PUA recovering people,bad for my computer? The plot thickens...

Okay I'm new at PUA,and I just visited the site, I don't think it has to be about how to pick up women, before I went to the site,I've clicked on the watch this video it could save you from a heart attack" and you click the link, and its the same stupid teaser,but the script is different. All of these are basically infomercials, designed to satisfy the person telling you how to get better at something,and thus, not very helpful.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

not gonna lie, I think PUA's are pretty pathetic and lack any sense of real sexuality, but, honestly, if you get seduced by one, it's your own fault for being weak willed and naive


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> not gonna lie, I think PUA's are pretty pathetic and lack any sense of real sexuality, but, honestly, if you get seduced by one, it's your own fault for being weak willed and naive


People wouldn't subscribe if there wasn't a large sample size of weak willed and naive women.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

First off, I'm not a PUA, nor am I active in the community. I've never really had trouble communicating with women and for the last 4 or so years of my life have had a bit of a natural rapport. PUA interests me because teaches people things that have always come naturally to me. I don't consider myself preying on naive and easily manipulated women. I just like meeting new people and having fun. And often enough, this leads to sex. People mix up sex and love. The two are *VERY* different. And as long as you are kind and caring of the other person, there should be no problems with it.



William I am said:


> PUA-ing is an abuse of psychology. Any person who reads a description of "neg-ing" can see that it's manipulative. The idea behind the whole system is to hurt someone so you can make them need you to make them feel better, and thus make them want to be around you and give you what you want.


Not really. Negging has been given a bad rep, and you'll find that most people misconstrue what it actually is. It isn't simply tossing out negative comments in order to reduce a girls self esteem. It is simply acting like you know the person already. The best example I can use is lightly making fun of your friends when they do something wrong. Not to hurt their feelings, but because you know eachother well enough to be able to find little mistakes funny. When lightheartedly doing this to a stranger it establishes a familiarness, women or otherwise.



William I am said:


> "Inner game" is just a red herring to reduce peoples' cognitive dissonance about manipulating other people. Not being conflicted makes it easier to appear confident and to go for broke without hesitation.


Inner game basically boils down to the fact that you can't get others to like you until you like yourself. Nothing else.




William I am said:


> Similarly to PUA-ing, we could quantify what different personality types are attracted to and use that to invent "techniques". The techniques are ways to exploit peoples' tendencies, to exploit psychological principles and data, and it is unethical.


Is it unethical to talk science with an NT type personality, to chat mechanics with SP's? I know these types of things please these personality types, does that mean I am abusing MBTI? I have a wide variety of interests, other people do not. So when I meet someone I ask about them and talk about things that we have in common. I don't see how having other people like you because you're a genuine person is unethical.

Is there an ethical difference between me, a person who's pretty good with others, and a person who hasn't, but would like to learn how to be?



William I am said:


> Maybe it would be more clear if we spelled out what the techniques are for and didn't shorten it to the single word.
> 
> What are the techniques for?


Basically for understanding the value of social interaction and how to act in social situations.


Yes, there are people who lie, manipulate and cheat. They will read these things, twist them and abuse them so that they can sleep with women. These people are truly scum. But that is the nature of humanity. They where mainly developed to help lonely people get out of their shell and enjoy life a bit more.


----------

