1027: "Pickup Artist"

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

If you tell them, "Think about what you're doing. Try to present your argument in a way that might get results from this other person who thinks a different way" they will be appalled. You are advocating that they rationally think out how to manipulate people. That's immoral.

No, this is not what people think; this is not what people mean by manipulation. Exposing your argument so that people can reason about it and decide whether to accept it is fine. It's when you circumvent this reasoning process that you become manipulative. It would be immoral to hypnotize PUAs into thinking that pickup is immoral.

In other words, the point is not to respect preferences, but to respect choice.

PUAs teach that you should approach hundreds of women, and that no particular woman is absolutely essential to you. If you get rejected, then just move on.

PUAs also teach that "oneitis", a guy's obsession with one particular girl, is unhealthy.

So I don't understand how this critique applies to the pick-up community.

You and Abraxo seem to have different understandings of what goes on in the pick-up community. The discussion you're quoting began as a response to Abraxo, and it only applies to pickup insofar as Abraxo's understanding is accurate.

That being said, there are other ways to disrespect a person's choice than to ignore outright rejection. If you come in looking to manipulate someone, then you're disrespecting her choice, even if you give up and go home the minute she expresses her disinterest.

[Belial]

You do realise that you are stating that a woman must be convinced that she is attracted to a particular man by that particular man and that her prior thoughts regarding him or any thoughts she has about him must be mediated and controlled by that man so that she ends up agreeing with his forgone conclusion that she should have sex with him?

Jesus, right?! Like, clearly attraction in women has to be built. Whereas in men it just happens.

Fucking "women are from venus" bullshit.

[FireZs]

My point is that a person can be an extremely successful, self-interested womanizer without crossing an ethical line. If the second guy does that, it's also fin for the first guy to become like the second guy. On the other hand it wouldn't be fine for the second guy to be an extremely successful, self-interested womanizer who disrespects women's preferences. If that's what the second guy is, then it would also be wrong for the first guy to become like him.

I have an issue with the "preferences" point. I know that I personally disrespect rather blatantly at least one common "preference": race. I've dated a lot of girls who have said to me something to the effect of "I was never into asian guys, until I met you." (hilariously, some of them were asian themselves) Am I crossing a line by disrespecting that "preference" when I first meet them?

Two things. First, if you don't know what someone wants, you're not disrespecting their preferences. Disrespect implies willfulness; if my girlfriend secretly hates white people and just never brought it up, I'm not in the wrong for dating her. Second, there's a difference between going against someone's usual preferences when they're open to trying something different and going against her preferences when she really just wants you to fuck off. Perhaps what I mean to say is that "preferences," as I mean them here, are not so much "things you enjoy" as "things that you choose." If somebody chooses to try something they don't necessarily expect to enjoy, their preferences are still being respected. In other words, the point is not to respect preferences, but to respect choice.

Right, I just bristle at the idea that if you don't fit the woman's ideal, then fuck off and don't try.

[between3and30]

let's invent bullshit misogynistic "theories"

Really? Which PUA hypothesises (I'd be hard pressed to call them theories as you do, as none of them have really been around for 50+ years) are woman hating?

supported by no evidence

Going out constantly and observing social interactions creates a fair amount of evidence.

that demean women

You're repeating yourself.

in order to allow us to keep the illusion that we are nice guys.

PUAs don't tell you to be the nice guy. In fact, a lot of them point out that the reason why "nice guys" don't have sex much is because they are actually selfish, manipulative jerks that are only being friends with the girls in the hopes that they will one day get to sexually escalate their relationship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN3_urefvk4

[Wharrgarbl8]

There is an element of immorality in many of these (some more than others), as manipulation is immoral.

PUA manipulation is particularly immoral because it concerns the sensitive matter of sex.

I think I see where you're coming from. I don't think someone who was taught these skills through life experience is more moral than someone who went to a class. A class-trained person is not more likely than the natural to hurt others or act unethically. We all strive to modify the behaviours of other's through our actions, training that skill doesn't remove your morality or empathy.

I trained as a mechanical engineer as science always came naturally to me, and I coasted through. A classmate of mine busted his balls to get the same grades I did. Is he more likely to build a weapon with what he learned? Almost any skill can be trained and used to hurt people.

[J Thomas]

the friend zone.

Ahh, my other favorite nonsense concept.

You don't believe in the friendzone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA

Sorry, what exactly about the friendzone is it that you don't believe?

The "friend-zone" is bullshit, because it pretends that if you weren't friends, she would have sex with you. The truth is that if you weren't friends, she still wouldn't have sex with you. This is where we get into "ladder theory": there aren't two ladders, like ladder theory suggests; there's only one ladder of attractiveness to a woman, it's just that women are willing to be friends with the whole ladder, but only have sex with people above a certain point in the ladder. That you're stuck in the "friend zone" with a bunch of women just means that you're a really unattractive guy.

That does not fit my experience, and when I try to empathize with particular women it doesn't fit what I get from any of them.

IME, most women do not have a ladder with a particular cut-off point and everybody who climbs high enough gets to sleep with them. No. That's sick, man.

I don't know how much validity the "friend zone" concept has. But I have known women who chose casual acquaintances for sex partners and never close friends. The reasoning that several of them expressed was that good friends are far more valuable than sex partners. If somebody you had sex with causes trouble, you can just get rid of him. But if having sex with a friend hurts the friendship, you've lost something far more valuable.

If you tell them, "Think about what you're doing. Try to present your argument in a way that might get results from this other person who thinks a different way" they will be appalled. You are advocating that they rationally think out how to manipulate people. That's immoral.

No, this is not what people think; this is not what people mean by manipulation. Exposing your argument so that people can reason about it and decide whether to accept it is fine. It's when you circumvent this reasoning process that you become manipulative. It would be immoral to hypnotize PUAs into thinking that pickup is immoral.

You could be right. However, I strongly suspect that the reason logical argument is allowed is that they know it is utterly ineffective at changing opinions.

What they object to is methods of manipulation that work. They couldn't care less about methods that consistently fail.

[Jave D]

I love this comic. I love it even more because of all the PUA rage I knew it'd attract.

Pick Up Artists: You're not an artist. You don't make art. Sorry.

Come back to me after you've composed a symphony or something.

Here's the thing about "PUA skills" or "PUA techniques:" They're entirely unnecessary if you develop what I like to call Life Skills. A person with genuinely good qualities is attractive. A person trying to fake good qualities in order to manipulate others into liking him is unattractive. Naturally, the PUA Community appeals to people with a lack of genuinely good qualities who nonetheless want the fruits of having them.

'BHG is a bitch' someone declared angrily. LOL. BHG Girl is completely and totally awesome. The inability to see that is a trait of a disease which manifests itself in general misogyny and objectification of women, i.e., unless a girl blushes and giggles and puts out when you smear your sneeringly condescending PUA skills all over her, there's something wrong with her. Ha. No. The problem is you and how you look at the world, guy. If you have a problem with how you deal with reality, the problem is not reality.

It's amazed me that a guy like me - not a playa, not particularly attractive, can nonetheless find women for hot hot sex and good relationships. I like to employ this technique I call "brutal honesty." It's a fringe technique, to be sure, and also to be sure, it's not for everyone. It weeds out those women who really enjoy deception and manipulation and endless piles of bullshit. The ones that pass my little test are 10's, dude. The people, men or women, who can't deal with reality as she is played are AFCs. Word.

Also, did a PUA fanboy really just whine about "class warfare" up there? Wow. Yeah. Clearly it's class warfare. Those with class, against those who lack class. Guess which one you're stumping for.

[Marlayna]

There is an element of immorality in many of these (some more than others), as manipulation is immoral.

PUA manipulation is particularly immoral because it concerns the sensitive matter of sex.

I think I see where you're coming from. I don't think someone who was taught these skills through life experience is more moral than someone who went to a class. A class-trained person is not more likely than the natural to hurt others or act unethically. We all strive to modify the behaviours of other's through our actions, training that skill doesn't remove your morality or empathy.

I trained as a mechanical engineer as science always came naturally to me, and I coasted through. A classmate of mine busted his balls to get the same grades I did. Is he more likely to build a weapon with what he learned? Almost any skill can be trained and used to hurt people.

Manipulation is wrong even if you use it to good ends.

[between3and30]

No, the PUAs are offensive because their entire way of looking at interactions between men and women involves the failure to take "please leave me alone" for an answer.

Then you know nothing about pickup. A HUGE part of pickup is simply about having a "plenty of fish in the sea" attitude.

No-one is saying it's dishonest to work on your social skills or wear clean clothes or something; it's a bit lame to do this solely in order to attract (apparently interchangeable) "women"

implying that there aren't people who are learning pickup because they believe it will help their ability to speak, which will in turn help their career, and improving the quantity and quality of their sexual relations is just an added bonus for them.

, but whatever. No-one is saying that you have to marry a woman in order to convince her that your intentions are sincere. The problem is approaching the interaction as a 'game', to be 'won'

A lot of the guys who are in pickup are the guys where everything that they've successfully done, they've completed because they viewed it as a game. That's more a way of motivating these guys to work on their social skills than anything else.

; the problem is manipulating women's social training (be nice at all costs)

You really have never been to a bar, have you? I've seen so many Average Frustrated Chumps walk up to women and immediately be shot down and told to "fuck off" that it's not even funny.

in order to pressure them into giving you more attention than they wish to,

To my knowledge pickup doesn't advocate forcing people to pay attention to you.

or even sex; the problem is setting out to 'control' a social situation, such that you attempt to override the woman's own desires, agency, and autonomy.

You're putting words in your opponents' mouths now.

Not everyone speaking up for PUA techniques has said this so baldly, but enough posters have that I'm getting rather creeped out by the drift of the conversation. I think I'm going to step away.

The only people who I've seen say that are the people who are trying to use it to say that pickup is bad.

Quote Sniping and Colored Text? Bugger that shit right off. -mp

[EpicanicusStrikes]

Like, clearly attraction in women has to be built. Whereas in men it just happens.

Women get unexplained, spontaneous boners, too? Sweet.

[LaserGuy]

Give me a specific example of what they do that is scamming.

The product that they are selling is themselves.
The product, however, does not actually have the features that it is claimed that it does, but the mark is manipulating into believing that it does.
The marketer takes full value for the product because the mark is deceived about the value of what is being offered.
The mark is left with nothing, or, at least, far less than what they were expecting.

In what sense of the term is this not a con?

[++$_]

let's invent bullshit misogynistic "theories"

Really? Which PUA hypothesises (I'd be hard pressed to call them theories as you do, as none of them have really been around for 50+ years) are woman hating?

"Theory" is in quotes for exactly that reason.

Anyway, the answer is pretty much all of them, because they treat women as subhuman beings whose alien mental process are incomprehensible to the untrained male, and who exist solely for the purposes of sex.

Going out constantly and observing social interactions creates a fair amount of evidence.

No, it creates a library of anecdotes, already deeply corrupted by selection bias (if you are a PUA you tend to hang out in different places from the average person), which is then cherry-picked and twisted to support the hypothesis du jour.

PUAs don't tell you to be the nice guy. In fact, a lot of them point out that the reason why "nice guys" don't have sex much is because they are actually selfish, manipulative jerks that are only being friends with the girls in the hopes that they will one day get to sexually escalate their relationship.

PUAs still want to believe that they are nice. Sure, they have recognized that there is a difference between being "nice" and being nice, but they haven't recognized that they are still firmly planted between the quotation marks.

The problem is that PUAs have decided to drop the "being friends with the girls" thing, but not the "selfish, manipulative jerk" part. Yet they believe that by replacing the "pretend to be friends so I can have sex" tactic by other manipulative tactics, they can be actual nice guys as opposed to "nice guys". Sorry, but you have to get rid of the manipulative part, not the individual tactic.

[ddxxdd]

Exactly my point. Attraction must come before rapport to avoid the friend zone.

That is the exact opposite of what I said.

You said that:

If a person you're attracted to just wants to be friends, it's usually because they aren't attracted to you. Plain and simple. It's not because you fucked the order up, it's not because you had a genuine friendly interaction with them too early. It certainly isn't a case of their friendship cancelling their attraction to you. It's a case of them just not being attracted to you.

So perhaps the order doesn't matter; although some people might contest that, given the weight of first impressions. However, you do in fact believe that the friendzone is a result of lack of attraction. That's why the pick-up community exists- to teach men behaviors that result in attraction.

No, the PUAs are offensive because their entire way of looking at interactions between men and women involves the failure to take "please leave me alone" for an answer.

No-one is saying it's dishonest to work on your social skills or wear clean clothes or something; it's a bit lame to do this solely in order to attract (apparently interchangeable) "women", but whatever. No-one is saying that you have to marry a woman in order to convince her that your intentions are sincere. The problem is approaching the interaction as a 'game', to be 'won'; the problem is manipulating women's social training (be nice at all costs) in order to pressure them into giving you more attention than they wish to, or even sex; the problem is setting out to 'control' a social situation, such that you attempt to override the woman's own desires, agency, and autonomy.

As I said before, PUAs teach guys to approach hundreds of women, and to accept many, many rejections since it will result in your personality getting stronger and your confidence growing. To accuse PUAs of not taking "no" for an answer, or for not accepting rejection, is downright slander.

Also, I must point out that the women that I talk to are not "socially trained" to be nice. Women have agency, most girls I talk to wouldn't be afraid to reject a guy in a second. Many guys have been told all their lives that they have to act nice and perform antiquated Victorian-era courtship in order to earn the affections of a woman, which is why a lot of guys are single nowadays.

Here's the thing about "PUA skills" or "PUA techniques:" They're entirely unnecessary if you develop what I like to call Life Skills. A person with genuinely good qualities is attractive. A person trying to fake good qualities in order to manipulate others into liking him is unattractive. Naturally, the PUA Community appeals to people with a lack of genuinely good qualities who nonetheless want the fruits of having them.

You can easily have great life skills but poor skills with the opposite sex. PUAs teach guys to dress better, talk more clearly, banter, not put women on a pedestal, and be outcome-independent. These skills are completely separate from being able to fix a car, having a great career, and having a lot of good friends.

[between3and30]

You do realise that you are stating that a woman must be convinced that she is attracted to a particular man by that particular man and that her prior thoughts regarding him or any thoughts she has about him must be mediated and controlled by that man so that she ends up agreeing with his forgone conclusion that she should have sex with him?

Jesus, right?! Like, clearly attraction in women has to be built. Whereas in men it just happens.

Fucking "women are from venus" bullshit.

Like it or not, men and women are not exactly the same. We evolved to have different historical roles, and as such have different things that we look for. Sexual dimorphism isn't that uncommon.

[FireZs]

The "friend-zone" is bullshit, because it pretends that if you weren't friends, she would have sex with you. The truth is that if you weren't friends, she still wouldn't have sex with you. This is where we get into "ladder theory": there aren't two ladders, like ladder theory suggests; there's only one ladder of attractiveness to a woman, it's just that women are willing to be friends with the whole ladder, but only have sex with people above a certain point in the ladder. That you're stuck in the "friend zone" with a bunch of women just means that you're a really unattractive guy.

That completely misrepresents the concept of the friendzone. And you just personally insulted me. Furthermore, you just bolstered my argument- that being able to build attraction is essential for having success with women.

Oh, I agree that attraction is key for sexual relationships with women. They're just separate concepts. It's not because you're friends that the attraction wasn't there. It simply wasn't there from the start.

The "friend-zone" is bullshit, because it pretends that if you weren't friends, she would have sex with you. The truth is that if you weren't friends, she still wouldn't have sex with you. This is where we get into "ladder theory": there aren't two ladders, like ladder theory suggests; there's only one ladder of attractiveness to a woman, it's just that women are willing to be friends with the whole ladder, but only have sex with people above a certain point in the ladder. That you're stuck in the "friend zone" with a bunch of women just means that you're a really unattractive guy.

Not really. Sexual tension (what leads to sexual relationships) is separate from rapport (what leads to friendships), and if you've got great rapport with someone with no sexual tension, and then you suddenly try to introduce some, it will typically weird them out.

Well, if she were attracted to you there would be sexual tension from the start, and no need to introduce it. As you said, they're separate.

Or alternatively that they don't want to have sex with you because not everyone wants to have sex with everyone they find attractive.

It seems like men totally get it when it comes to who they want to have sex with, but somehow they are totally convinced that if women don't want to have sex with them, it must be that they are falling afoul of some bizarre exotic sorting algorithm OF DEATH. More likely, it's actually because they are jerks, but never mind that; let's invent bullshit misogynistic "theories" supported by no evidence that demean women in order to allow us to keep the illusion that we are nice guys.

I don't just mean physical attractiveness when I say "attractive."

[jpers36]

Two people who are very good friends.

One is a doctor of biochemistry, mentioned him early, very bright etc. Good catch. Awful at picking up women. Would never cheat on a girl, and would make a great father.

Other has slept with more women than Casanova (no joke). Articulate, extremely high natural game, womaniser and extremely successful at it. Has been known to cheat on women in the past.

I was very much the first person. My lifestyle was intentionally so due to my priorities and convictions, and I wouldn't have traded my life for that of the second person. I wasn't socially awkward, just romantically so. As that person, I did eventually find a wonderful woman (we bonded over xkcd!) and I'm in an amazing monogamous relationship -- specifically, marriage.

To suggest that the first person needs to be more like the second in order to find true joy or meaning in life is, to put it bluntly, idiotic.

[Jave D]

Like, clearly attraction in women has to be built. Whereas in men it just happens.

Women get unexplained, spontaneous boners, too? Sweet.

I don't know about you, but there is a difference between having a boner and being attracted to a woman for me. Particularly when said boners are as you say, unexplained and spontaneous.

[J Thomas]

Most of the people who become interested in PUA are lonely introverts who haven't been properly socialized. They most likely tried to find love through openness and honesty; that simply doesn't work unless you have natural game. When you're in a position where you don't tend to naturally attract females, what the fuck are you to be expected to do?

Another one? Your desire to get your dick wet outweighs everything else, including treating the other 50% of the human race as actual people?

Try to be a good example here. Show your empathy for whargarbl8? How does he feel? How does he feel when you act this way? What does he really want? What would an empathetic person so about that?

I don't want to fuck whargarbl8.

You'll only show empathy for those you want to fuck?

Of course not. It was a joke.

I do try to empathise with the PUAs on this thread. I remember being a horny young virgin. But the abject objectification of women they indulge in (all while claiming that they're not misogynists, oh no not at all) makes it very difficult.

That's why it's presenting a good example.

Anybody can do it when it's real easy.

[++$_]

Like, clearly attraction in women has to be built. Whereas in men it just happens.

Women get unexplained, spontaneous boners, too? Sweet.

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

This lesson in basic human sexuality brought to you by the letter 5, and the number H.

[Murderbot]

No, I'm saying that the pick up artists are conmen. I thought that was pretty clear.

I think the analogy to money is a useful one. There is nothing wrong with wanting to pursue money. There is something wrong with pursuing money by scamming other people out of theirs. Or outright stealing it, of course.

Word.
Just as the victim of a conman loses their monies with nothing in return due to their transaction, the victim of a "pickup artist" loses their sex with nothing in return due to their transaction.

[ddxxdd]

Give me a specific example of what they do that is scamming.

The product that they are selling is themselves.
The product, however, does not actually have the features that it is claimed that it does, but the mark is manipulating into believing that it does.
The marketer takes full value for the product because the mark is deceived about the value of what is being offered.
The mark is left with nothing, or, at least, far less than what they were expecting.

In what sense of the term is this not a con?

So you're saying that PUAs lie about their income and careers when they approach women?

Or that a PUA that playfully banters with women doesn't playfully banter with his friends?

Another person in this thread summed up the community when he said that PUAs teach guys how to "treat attractive women just like they'd treat anyone else".

[The Great Hippo]

Going out constantly and observing social interactions creates a fair amount of evidence.

Remember that anecdotal evidence is often self-affirming; confirmation bias is a big problem.

I suspect that the primary group pushing PUA--its main advocates and teachers--are relatively attractive, charismatic, confident men. How much does their luck in sex have to do with a system of codified techniques, and how much of it has to do with our attraction toward charismatic, confident, pleasant-looking people? When self-conscious people have some sort of structure to 'fall back' on in social situations, don't they often act more confident? How much of this is really about the system and how much of this is about having a system to begin with?

Mind you, I think PUA is a load of manipulative horse-shit regardless of its efficacy. I'm just not convinced it's effective at what it's doing, and anecdotes aren't going to convince me otherwise.

[FireZs]

The "friend-zone" is bullshit, because it pretends that if you weren't friends, she would have sex with you. The truth is that if you weren't friends, she still wouldn't have sex with you. This is where we get into "ladder theory": there aren't two ladders, like ladder theory suggests; there's only one ladder of attractiveness to a woman, it's just that women are willing to be friends with the whole ladder, but only have sex with people above a certain point in the ladder. That you're stuck in the "friend zone" with a bunch of women just means that you're a really unattractive guy.

That does not fit my experience, and when I try to empathize with particular women it doesn't fit what I get from any of them.

IME, most women do not have a ladder with a particular cut-off point and everybody who climbs high enough gets to sleep with them. No. That's sick, man.

I don't know how much validity the "friend zone" concept has. But I have known women who chose casual acquaintances for sex partners and never close friends. The reasoning that several of them expressed was that good friends are far more valuable than sex partners. If somebody you had sex with causes trouble, you can just get rid of him. But if having sex with a friend hurts the friendship, you've lost something far more valuable.

The ladder thing is just to illustrate my point in a model that is easily presentable to people who believe in the ladder theory (which is bullshit). In reality it's just a "yes" or "no" in terms of attraction.

Your experience is valid, but you're not interpreting it correctly. If the women you described were sexually attracted to the friends they kept, they would've had sex with them much earlier, before they got to be friends. So, once again, it's not that being friends makes you less attractive, it's that being less attractive to the woman makes you just friends.

[Belial]

Another person in this thread summed up the community when he said that PUAs teach guys how to "treat attractive women just like they'd treat anyone else".

If that were the case, it wouldn't be a community with techniques and books dedicated to those techniques. It would be a sentence.

[Wharrgarbl8]

When reading this thread I find it very useful to keep one question in mind: "Do these techniques work?" do they?

Do you tend to put women on a pedestal? Do you feel unworthy of them? Do you feel like a woman who decided to sleep with you would be doing you a huge one-sided favour? Are you unable to work up the courage to talk to them? Do you act 'weird' around girls you like or say things you regret almost immediately?

If that sounds like you, then yes you might be able to benefit from some PUA training. Just don't take it a gospel, and make sure to mix it with what you feel and who you are. I've seen it work on guys like you, and really help them get to the point where they are having good conformable conversations with nice women.

[spats]

The difference between the first guy if he became a PUA and the second guy is that the second guy is putting it all out there. "This is who I am. I'm Cassanova. I'm going to make you feel awesome for a while, love you and then leave you." If women want to fuck him because he's attractive and engaging then more power to them - and if they get hurt, that's on them too.

But hey, what about the first guy as he is now? You say he's a "great catch". Is he, really? What is he like to talk to? Can he make engaging conversation? How does he make a woman feel when they're together? Because being a loyal puppy dog with a professional salary isn't enough for a lot of women. Women can make their own money now. They can raise their own kids. They're looking for things like companionship and fun and good sex - and nothing you've told me about the first guy speaks to any of that.

Good points, and well made. You make especially good points about the requirements for the first guy, and how they're broader than I've outlined.

I don't think the first guy should become a PUA btw. But I see nothing wrong, or immoral, about him becoming BETTER at these things.

And you're right about the second guy too.

So here's the thing - learning how to manipulate women to have sex with him isn't going to make him any "better" at the things that are important. It's just going to make him a deceitful shit. What he needs to work on - if he's going to try to change who he is - is his basic interpersonal relationship skills. But maybe in the end, he's just really not that interesting. Too bad for him. Maybe he can meet a boring girl and they can have boring kids and lead a boring life. (Dirty little secret: most people do, eventually.)

The problem is that the first guy probably thinks to himself, "Hey, look at that other guy. He's got an exciting life. He's a total cad. He's sleeping with all those hot women but he's totally bad for them.* How come no hot women ever want to sleep with me?" So he's thinking of the wrong thing - he's thinking, "How can I lay those hot chicks?" rather than "What kind of women should I really be looking for?" Maybe what he needs is a little eHarmony or something, so he can meet someone who's actually a good match for him.

But maybe all he really wants is sex, not a relationship. Well, it's very possible that the sort of women he wants to have sex with isn't interested in him. He can treat them as challenges to be overcome - i.e. non-persons - and try to trick them, or he can accept the situation and figure out what kind of women would actually be interested in having sex with him. In the end, he'll get a lot more, better sex the second way, even if that's all he wants. Yeah, there are some ways he can work on increasing his confidence, but it should still be with a sense of respect and treating the other person as a human being and an equal and not just as an obstacle to his penis.

* This in itself is problematic - he's taking away their moral agency. Most (all?) of those women know that he's bad for them, and that it will end in tears. They don't care.

[Nylonathatep]

Every young woman should read that book!

But then they'd know the method, which would render the method useless. There needs to be a "The Game for Women who've read the Game" book for men to still pick up women via metaneg.

Cracked.com ran an article about 10 things school didn't teach you that you should learn. That's on #9. Seriously I would let my daughter read it just so some dumb PUA doesn't make her do silly things, get pregnant, or catch an STD.

[between3and30]

let's invent bullshit misogynistic "theories"

Really? Which PUA hypothesises (I'd be hard pressed to call them theories as you do, as none of them have really been around for 50+ years) are woman hating?

"Theory" is in quotes for exactly that reason.

OOOOOOOHH. OK, you're just putting words in people's mouths, not actually calling it a theory.

Anyway, the answer is pretty much all of them, because they treat women as subhuman beings whose alien mental process are incomprehensible to the untrained male, and who exist solely for the purposes of sex.

All I read there is "I DON'T KNOW SO THEY MUST ALL BE EVIL"

Going out constantly and observing social interactions creates a fair amount of evidence.

No, it creates a library of anecdotes, already deeply corrupted by selection bias

Ok, lets forget about any observational study in history. There goes the fields of sociology, psychology, and anthropology.

(if you are a PUA you tend to hang out in different places from the average person), which is then cherry-picked and twisted to support the hypothesis du jour.

Really? Where do PUAs hang out that "normal" people don't? I thought the idea was to meet people, not sit by yourself somewhere where there are no people around.

PUAs don't tell you to be the nice guy. In fact, a lot of them point out that the reason why "nice guys" don't have sex much is because they are actually selfish, manipulative jerks that are only being friends with the girls in the hopes that they will one day get to sexually escalate their relationship.

PUAs still want to believe that they are nice. Sure, they have recognized that there is a difference between being "nice" and being nice, but they haven't recognized that they are still firmly planted between the quotation marks.

Not really. I know very few PUAs that model their avatar after "the good guy". The good guy is great for finding a long term relationship, but he sucks for rapidly improving your social skills. More PUAs seem to model themselves after "the bad boy", and I know multiple who straight up call themselves "assholes". The difference is that the PUAs that are assholes or who only want sex are upfront about it, whereas the nice guys in the friendzone are being manipulative and hiding it because they think that 1. they are actually great guys and everyone else is an asshole and 2. they think it will help them achieve secks.

The problem is that PUAs have decided to drop the "being friends with the girls" thing

Not really. Every PUA I've met has multiple female friends that they hang out with that they aren't sexually interested in (I've spoken online with a few that don't).

, but not the "selfish, manipulative jerk" part.

Let's get something straight. Hiding the fact that you're interested in hopes that it will help you is manipulative. Being up front about the fact that you're interested is not manipulative.

Yet they believe that by replacing the "pretend to be friends so I can have sex" tactic by other manipulative tactics

Oh? Which tactics are manipulative? Do you even know any? Is AMOGING (showing other guys that you're leader who can handle pressure) manipulative? Is negging (saying something to show that you're not hitting on the girl so that you have time to introduce yourself to the group) manipulative (yeah, kinda, but not the same level)? Is DHVing (doing things that show that you're interesting) manipulative? Is building rapport manipulative? etc.

, they can be actual nice guys as opposed to "nice guys". Sorry, but you have to get rid of the manipulative part, not the individual tactic.

You're putting words in other people's mouths. PUAs (in general, not all) try their best to not be manipulative, despite what you're saying that they tell people to do.

[L33]

Does anyone else feel that the fact that the guy was a PUA might be related to how BHG decided to insult him?

This might just be my experience, but the two guys I know who got into PUA were really big into "epiphanies." One guy cycles through dietary lifetsyles: paleo, vegan, etc., but has never once consulted with an actual nutritionist or doctor about his health. Another guy tells me that he has had a life-changing epiphany seriously every time I see him (about once every 2-3 months) and that everything will be better from here on out, but he's still deeply narcissistic, is controlling of his friends and fiance, and financially unsuccessful.

I think that the type of person who wants the cheat codes to "build attraction" with women also wants the cheat codes to everything: happiness, wealth, health, friendship and social interaction in general. And I also generally agree with BHG that self-reflection "won't help." Self-reflection does not help people who are narcissistic and want to control other people. Therapy helps people who are narcissistic and want to control other people. Sometimes.

[between3and30]

The reason why the PUA community says that attraction must come before friendship isn't because it's not possible the other way around, but because if you build a friendship with someone, and then reveal that you wanted to be with them the whole time, that's deceitful and manipulative.

No, it isn't. As long as you have pursued the friendship for its own sake, and not just as a means to an end, it doesn't make a difference that you also happened to feel sexual and/or romantic attraction.

So... what you're saying is that you're agreeing with me...?

I'm talking about relationships where you want it to be sexual from the start. You realize that PUAs have non-sexual relationships as well.

[The Great Hippo]

Do you tend to put women on a pedestal? Do you feel unworthy of them? Do you feel like a woman who decided to sleep with you would be doing you a huge one-sided favour? Are you unable to work up the courage to talk to them? Do you act 'weird' around girls you like or say things you regret almost immediately?

If that sounds like you, then yes you might be able to benefit from some PUA training. Just don't take it a gospel, and make sure to mix it with what you feel and who you are. I've seen it work on guys like you, and really help them get to the point where they are having good conformable conversations with nice women.

I had this problem a long time ago. I felt tremendously insecure around women, and people in general. I got over most of it by taking a theater class--I slipped the teacher a note asking him to pick on me relentlessly, and stop me from hiding or staying quiet. He made sure I had to act like a loon to pass.

That didn't get rid of all of it, but it got rid of a lot of it. Since then, I've asked women out, been rejected, accepted--and got married. My point is that these issues aren't new, they're things a lot of us face, and there are ways to deal with them that don't involve steeping yourself in heaping pile of manipulative bullshit.

Yes, maybe the manipulative bullshit will give you the confidence you need to interact with others in a positive way. You might also come out of it covered in lots of bullshit, and it might take a while for you to wash it off. There are better methods to becoming confident and secure.

[Thomathy]

You do realise that you are stating that a woman must be convinced that she is attracted to a particular man by that particular man and that her prior thoughts regarding him or any thoughts she has about him must be mediated and controlled by that man so that she ends up agreeing with his forgone conclusion that she should have sex with him?

Jesus, right?! Like, clearly attraction in women has to be built. Whereas in men it just happens.

Fucking "women are from venus" bullshit.

Like it or not, men and women are not exactly the same. We evolved to have different historical roles, and as such have different things that we look for. Sexual dimorphism isn't that uncommon.

Right! Because pointing out the fact that sexual dimorphism exists (albeit along a continnuum and totally independent of a person's agency) totally addresses in every way the comment that the Belial was responding to.

[ddxxdd]

Going out constantly and observing social interactions creates a fair amount of evidence.

Remember that anecdotal evidence is often self-affirming; confirmation bias is a big problem.

I suspect that the primary group pushing PUA--its main advocates and teachers--are relatively attractive, charismatic, confident men. How much does their luck in sex have to do with a system of codified techniques, and how much of it has to do with our attraction toward charismatic, confident, pleasant-looking people? When self-conscious people have some sort of structure to 'fall back' on in social situations, don't they often act more confident? How much of this is really about the system and how much of this is about having a system to begin with?

Mind you, I think PUA is a load of manipulative horse-shit regardless of its efficacy. I'm just not convinced it's effective at what it's doing, and anecdotes aren't going to convince me otherwise.

This is the first criticism of the community that I actually respect. Perhaps PUA stuff works because it's the first attempt at people understanding attraction and seduction, and creating a codified system for it.

However, keep in mind that no 2 PUAs are the same. There are literally hundreds of systems out there, and there are PUAs that argue with each other over the merits of their system. The only piece of advice that I've seen PUAs advocate uniformly is this: Keep approaching women, and keep on accepting rejection, as it will build your confidence and make you outcome-independent. Other than that, attacks on the PUA community pretty much amount to attacks on the idea of openly discussing how to win a woman's affections.

If that were the case, it wouldn't be a community with techniques and books dedicated to those techniques. It would be a sentence.

Would that sentence be "Be yourself?" Because that sentence is completely ineffective, it doesn't critique anyone's flirting behavior, and it doesn't teach guys how to be confident.

The reason why there are so many books is because there are so many different personalities, both in PUAs and average guys, and different people use different opening lines to break the ice, different ways to transition from an opening line to a conversation (my personal choice is "nouning", taking the nouns from each sentence, relating it to a personal story, and following up with an open ended question), different ways to show a girl that you're outcome independent and confident, different ways to get a girl to show that she's qualified to be in some sort of relationship with you, etc.

Mystery prefers to talk about these things in terms of specific actions. His philosophy is that what you say and do affect how you think and act.

Tyler Durden prefers to talk about these things in terms of perspective. He shows that truly independent men can take the perspectives of people around them, and shift them so that everyone else sees things from your perspective.

Juggler prefers to talk about these things in terms of body language. He points out that 95% of communication is unspoken, and he shows you how confident people like Brad Pitt have good voice tonality, body language, facial expressions, and other forms of multi-level communication.

So really, pick-up is about learning psychology, philosophy, sociology, self-improvement, self-motivation, etc. under the guise of "being able to get laid". As Juggler himself said, no one can really understand what it's like being in the community until they're a part of it.

[FireZs]

When reading this thread I find it very useful to keep one question in mind: "Do these techniques work?" do they?

Only if you're fundamentally attractive to the women in question already. These techniques only work in removing certain disqualifiers, if what's underneath is still unattractive to them, they won't work.

[++$_]

You're putting words in other people's mouths. PUAs (in general, not all) try their best to not be manipulative, despite what you're saying that they tell people to do.

Ah, I see, it's the "no true Scotsman" argument. No REAL pickup artist would ever advocate (DANGER: NSFW/PUA LINKS) neruolinguistic programming, communicating active disinterest, the use of intermittent rewards, etc....

Or perhaps those are not manipulation. Of course not.

[addams]

The "friend-zone" is bullshit, because it pretends that if you weren't friends, she would have sex with you. The truth is that if you weren't friends, she still wouldn't have sex with you. This is where we get into "ladder theory": there aren't two ladders, like ladder theory suggests; there's only one ladder of attractiveness to a woman, it's just that women are willing to be friends with the whole ladder, but only have sex with people above a certain point in the ladder. That you're stuck in the "friend zone" with a bunch of women just means that you're a really unattractive guy.

That does not fit my experience, and when I try to empathize with particular women it doesn't fit what I get from any of them.

IME, most women do not have a ladder with a particular cut-off point and everybody who climbs high enough gets to sleep with them. No. That's sick, man.

I don't know how much validity the "friend zone" concept has. But I have known women who chose casual acquaintances for sex partners and never close friends. The reasoning that several of them expressed was that good friends are far more valuable than sex partners. If somebody you had sex with causes trouble, you can just get rid of him. But if having sex with a friend hurts the friendship, you've lost something far more valuable.

The ladder thing is just to illustrate my point in a model that is easily presentable to people who believe in the ladder theory (which is bullshit). In reality it's just a "yes" or "no" in terms of attraction.

Your experience is valid, but you're not interpreting it correctly. If the women you described were sexually attracted to the friends they kept, they would've had sex with them much earlier, before they got to be friends. So, once again, it's not that being friends makes you less attractive, it's that being less attractive to the woman makes you just friends.

I, kind of, disagree. Long standing friendships can change.
Comic #330. I think.

People may find it fun to have a person that they respect and enjoy as human and intelligent and a pain in the ass the way friends are, before, having sex. Wild idea. Right?
Yes. I know. Sex is often the death of the friendship.
It is not a gamble to take lightly.

[Wharrgarbl8]

the victim of a "pickup artist" loses their sex with nothing in return due to their transaction.

Didn't the 'victim' also want to have sex, and then got sex? Most of the opposition to PUAs is based on this idea that when 2 hetero people have sex than man is taking something from the woman.

[SoaG]

It's fine to have an intuitive empathy for other people so you instinctively know how they will respond, and avoid presenting your honest feelings when you know it will cause trouble.

Actually it's not fine, it's just easier. The trouble avoided in the short term will be far outweighed by the trouble that results from being dishonest over the long term. Having empathy and knowing how they respond should, however, have an effect on how you present your honest feelings.

The important thing is to do the right thing, to follow the true morality. If bad things happen as a result, don't worry about them. You did the right thing.

Words to live by.

*Edit* Corrected misattributed quotes

[FireZs]

Other than that, attacks on the PUA community pretty much amount to attacks on the idea of openly discussing how to win a woman's affections.

I think a lot of people, and women especially, are disturbed at the idea that there is a "how" at all. We are taught from an early age that one day "it" will "happen" for us and that we'll meet "the right person" or "the one" and "fall in love" and live happily ever after.

[J Thomas]

The "friend-zone" is bullshit, because it pretends that if you weren't friends, she would have sex with you. The truth is that if you weren't friends, she still wouldn't have sex with you. This is where we get into "ladder theory": there aren't two ladders, like ladder theory suggests; there's only one ladder of attractiveness to a woman, it's just that women are willing to be friends with the whole ladder, but only have sex with people above a certain point in the ladder. That you're stuck in the "friend zone" with a bunch of women just means that you're a really unattractive guy.

That does not fit my experience, and when I try to empathize with particular women it doesn't fit what I get from any of them.

IME, most women do not have a ladder with a particular cut-off point and everybody who climbs high enough gets to sleep with them. No. That's sick, man.

I don't know how much validity the "friend zone" concept has. But I have known women who chose casual acquaintances for sex partners and never close friends. The reasoning that several of them expressed was that good friends are far more valuable than sex partners. If somebody you had sex with causes trouble, you can just get rid of him. But if having sex with a friend hurts the friendship, you've lost something far more valuable.

The ladder thing is just to illustrate my point in a model that is easily presentable to people who believe in the ladder theory (which is bullshit). In reality it's just a "yes" or "no" in terms of attraction.

Your experience is valid, but you're not interpreting it correctly. If the women you described were sexually attracted to the friends they kept, they would've had sex with them much earlier, before they got to be friends. So, once again, it's not that being friends makes you less attractive, it's that being less attractive to the woman makes you just friends.

No, you're proposing that women generally have sex with everybody they're attracted to. My experience is that lots of women are more choosy than that.

If we were to get into an actual discussion about how women choose who to have sex with, I bet it would be fascinating and also I bet some of the women here would be utterly outraged. They don't want to discuss this openly, and they don't like it when other people do either. There are solid historical reasons for that, since it isn't that long ago that women who openly admitted to having sex with anybody they weren't married to got a whole lot of social disapproval. There's still some of that to this day. So it isn't real likely that a woman here would describe precisely what it was that got her to sleep with the last 30 men in her life.