1027: "Pickup Artist"

[FireZs]

Randall's trolling again. He knows perfectly well his community is mixed with PUA fans and people who put women on pedestals.

PUA methods are bullshit, in the sense that they don't actually make you more attractive. All it does is remove a few things that would have disqualified you. If what's left still isn't attractive to a woman, she's still not going to date/sleep with you.

Women-on-a-pedestal people aren't much better. From what they say, it sounds like doing ANYTHING to increase the odds that a woman will accept your advances is not ok, as if it's somehow "fooling" the woman into choosing a mate that is less than her dream man. FYI, "talk to her like she's a person" doesn't mean "talk to her like she's any old person."

Also, BHGirl's "comeback" is pretty weak. It's the kind of thing I used to say in high school (which, looking back on who I said it to and how they turned out, was pretty cruel of me).

[Jackpot777]

A lot of posters seem to think these techniques involve deceit on part of the guy to "trick" women into having sex with him.
You cannot trick someone into being attracted to you- that has to be genuine. If the girl is not already attracted to you, the techniques don't work. All they do is provide guidance to the interaction, and allow your own personality to come out. They give the woman the opportunity to select you. I'd love to be totally open with a girl- go up to her and say "I'm attracted to you and want to fuck you". But then any desirable woman would have hundreds of guys propositioning her every day. So instead we have a system of social dynamics and selection. We didn't write the rules to evolution, but it's the rules that everyone plays by. And sex isn't something guys "take" from women, it's something that is shared.

The correct response from a neg is laughter.

Scientific observation says the PUA's "correct" response, laughter, is only correct in ensuring his failure...

Previous work by Bale et al. (2006) found that women weren't particularly impressed with men trying to be funny, despite what we are often told. It seems opening lines are a serious business for both sexes.

[dawolf]

I'll repeat what I said about that comic: This is an insulting accusation.

I love someone. I think they're great. I enjoy their company, so I ask for their company. I enjoy doing things with them, so I ask to do things with them. If it comes to a point where it feels natural to start dating them, I'll likewise straightforwardly ask for it. There's no "stealth" involved whatsoever.

The "stealth" is that you were in love with them before you decided to become friends with them.

But anyway, this is becoming too personal, so I'll stop now, and wish you luck

[philsov]

The ending if the character was a pro.

Remember -- "No" doesn't mean "no", it means "not yet."

(I wish I was making the above up. I really do.)

[Wharrgarbl8]

There is a difference in mentality. The focus should be on yourself, not on others. That way you stay honest and you don't overstep boundaries.

Not overstepping boundaries that is an argument that one strategy is more successful than another, not more moral, right or honest. So what do you do when focusing on yourself (which is what people naturally do) just doesn't work? Really, what is your solution for the men who have no success with your method? There are lots of them out there. Should they just accept their lot as being frustrated and alone? What to do when focusing on the self leads to brutal and hurtful rejection from the opposite sex?

[Murderbot]

[J Thomas]

Helpful hint: There are at least three generations of pickup artists!
An the first two are epic failures!

The first ones were started by Ross Jeffries, who used neuro-lingual programming. We have all agreed, that that is a extremely fucked-up way of doing things. We have also agreed that if you “get” a woman that way, you can never know if she really likes you, or just because of your nasty trickses. And in the end, it will not work for long anyway.

I'm somewhat familiar with Ross Jeffries. I wondered whether there was anything to NLP, so I tried the NLP newsgroup, and looked at some NLP websites, and took a free NLP series of classes. The free classes were run by somebody who wanted to be an NLP teacher, and he was refining his methods. There were a lot of Ross graduates in the class.

The website was full of people who wanted to teach NLP. I thought I could sense the dynamics. The NLP teachers would give their students the idea that they were great wonderful people since that made the students learn better. But then many of the students wanted to be great wonderful people like their teachers, and they tried to learn enough to go into the same business. Everybody was having money problems.

But Ross Jeffries was making lots and lots of money. He hired other NLP teachers to help with his seminars and they resented him for it. He didn't teach NLP, he taught shy men how to pick up women. He did not teach them how to marry women, he taught them how to have sex with lots of women.

The method was, basicly:

1. Go to a place where unattached women might go when they're ready to pick up somebody.
2. Explain to a woman the philosophy that it's great to have sex with strangers who then cause you no further problems of any sort.
3. Promise that if she has sex with you, you won't be a crazy person who will stalk her or insist that she do it again.
4. Ask her to have sex.

Also there was a whole lot of NLP type stuff that was supposed to promote rapport.

So men who were too shy to meet women, got a protocol that gave them confidence to meet women who might agree to casual sex, and a way to persuade those women that they were not crazy. Whether their success rate was 5% or 50% was not important; they got their money's worth. They could have casual sex with women who wanted that. If they believed they were tricking women into wanting it, that was kind of irrelevant except for the creepiness factor.

When a woman was disinterested, the guys claimed they gave up immediately and went to find somebody else. Their odds were clearly better to find somebody it worked on than to waste their time with somebody who had a different philosophy.

He was not teaching his students how to get women to *really* like them, or to have lasting relationships. He was teaching them how to find women who were looking for sex, and invite them to have sex without creeping them out. The SS guys I met gave each other tips for places to meet women and bragged about how well it worked. They seemed to pity me a bit for having a girlfriend (that I later married). If I took Jeffries's course I could have as many women as I wanted. I didn't argue with them.

[markfiend]

Really, what is your solution for the men who have no success with your method? There are lots of them out there. Should they just accept their lot as being frustrated and alone? What to do when focusing on the self leads to brutal and hurtful rejection from the opposite sex?

In which Wharrgarbl8 reveals himself as another asshole who doesn't care about the woman's feelings in the matter as long as he gets to dip his wick.

[Abraxo]

This is a community that loves to champion all things science, so I put this challenge to you. Right or wrong, the pick up artists are proposing a testable hypothesis. Many of the people here are trying to answer an empirical question with a debate about morality and ethics. The PUAs have long since abandoned mundane questions of morality and they would strenuously disagree with you anyways. The one area where they are open to persuasion is on tactics and empirics. If they are merely a bunch of ignorant misogynists, then their misogyny should be biasing their science and they will be making demonstrably false claims that will run counter to their stated goals. You need an imminent, not a transcendent critique. Science says little about the ends, but a lot about the means.

I will leave you with an old favorite: http://xkcd.com/54/

[J Thomas]

I'm a decent man, not a homosexual at all.

Cool dichotomy, bro.

Yes, I thought so. Paralleling the "decent women" who never have sex outside marriage, versus the despicable sluts who do.

[adonis]

Seduction is wrong. Manipulation is wrong in general, because it infringes on people's right to judge and make rational decisions based on true facts and free of any kind of pressure you may exert on them, directly or indirectly.

There IS a fucking game; we're animals, and we have mating rituals and socially defined roles. To says "seduction is wrong" is to deny a fundamental human behavior. Seduction is how we have sex, not rational discourse.

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?

Anyways, properly implemented, PUA can be very positive and non-misogynistic. It's not manipulation when the other party knows exactly what you're doing, and it's not misogynistic when your primary goal is to make girls happy and give them what they actually want. I say "properly implemented" to refer to philosophies within the community that are humanizing, and focus on attaining fulfilling relationships. David DeAngelo does this pretty well. There are, unfortunately, some seedier "gurus" who teach how to prey on insecure women with daddy issues, like the famous "Mystery Method", which introduced negging.

[DarkShard]

He does not realize it but the "pick-up artist" of this comic is actually the winner here. This woman he's taken an interest in has proven herself to be an utter bitch.

God! As a woman, this kind of mentality makes me fume. "Oh, yes, the man may have set out to deliberately manipulate the woman in a manner that would degrade her and damage her self-esteem so that he could convince her to have sex with him, but she had a mean comeback! That makes her worse!"

No. The idea that a woman is required to be nice to a man even when the man isn't being nice to the woman is stupid. If a man sets out to make a woman feel badly about herself so that he can take advantage of her, she is not required to treat his feelings with kid gloves. She gets to return his serve. He started it, and has no right to whine when she defeats him at his own game.

[Marlayna]

I'll repeat what I said about that comic: This is an insulting accusation.

I love someone. I think they're great. I enjoy their company, so I ask for their company. I enjoy doing things with them, so I ask to do things with them. If it comes to a point where it feels natural to start dating them, I'll likewise straightforwardly ask for it. There's no "stealth" involved whatsoever.

The "stealth" is that you were in love with them before you decided to become friends with them.

But anyway, this is becoming too personal, so I'll stop now, and wish you luck

No, that's ok.

It's not "stealth" because I'm not hiding or lying about anything. I just happen to believe that my feelings are my own business and expressing them isn't always appropriate. If I were asked whether I'm in love, I'd answer truthfully.

Also, I don't have an ulterior motive. If I happen to find out that he isn't attracted to me or he has a girlfriend or anything else that would eliminate the possibility of a romantic relationship, it wouldn't change a thing (which is why I'm not interested in finding out, by the way). I would still act in exactly the same way, because the friendship is its own reward. I'd just go "oh, then I guess I won't be asking him out in the future" and continue to be friends and be perfectly happy with it.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

The PUAs have long since abandoned mundane questions of morality and they would strenuously disagree with you anyways.

[J Thomas]

There is a difference between asking yourself "what can I do to enhance and/or better present my pleasant and interesting attributes?" and asking yourself "what can I do to make this person think or act the way I want?"

Why would you want to enhance your presentation? Seriously, why would you spend your time and energy on something as silly and pointless as presenting yourself in a way that affects what is in other people's heads? Why should you care how that random jumble of neurons in someone's head is arranged?

Because you genuinely care how another person feels? Empathy? Basic fucking humanity?

You care because of how it affects YOU. Because your presentation affects thier reaction to you. Because it makes them 'think or act the way I want'. It may not be what your thinking at the time, but you present yourself to people in a certain way to make them act the way you want. Why else would you do it? The only difference between presenting yourself and making people act the way you want is a layer of cognitive dissonance.

And the only difference between how you do it and how 'The Game' does is is that one is learned naturally and one is learned from a book.

Bullshit. Do you even see other people as, well, people? Do you have any human feelings at all?

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 do about that?

[markfiend]

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.

[parsley242]

But I wish I could recall a single xkcd where Randall acknowledged that it's respectable for lonely introverts to want to learn better social skills.

Wait, what? How is this comic insulting lonely introverts who want to learn better social skills? How is it even *about* lonely introverts who want to learn better social skills? It's about a guy who thinks he can game his way past the need for social skills, and whose current strategy for that is hitting on women - for no other reason than because they happen to be female in his field of vision - by insulting them.

You're right that the comic presents a jerk. But he's a jerk introduced to us specifically by his interest in PUA, and I think of the average person interested in PUA as a lonely introvert, not a jerk. And this isn't the first time Randall's done a comic complaining about PUA - remember the one about "wouldn't it be great if all the people who read "The Game" went off with all the people who read "The Rules"?"

So it feels to me like Randall thinks if you get interested in studying PUA, that definitionally *proves* you a jerk. And that rubs me wrong.

But it's still a good comic. Because I'm sure there are jerks out there just like the one in the comic, and Black Hat Girl is funny as heck.

[dawolf]

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?

[SpringLoaded12]

xkcd: the sitcom

At least half the readers would watch that, I'll bet.

[Marlayna]

There is a difference in mentality. The focus should be on yourself, not on others. That way you stay honest and you don't overstep boundaries.

Not overstepping boundaries that is an argument that one strategy is more successful than another, not more moral, right or honest.

How so?

So what do you do when focusing on yourself (which is what people naturally do) just doesn't work? Really, what is your solution for the men who have no success with your method? There are lots of them out there. Should they just accept their lot as being frustrated and alone? What to do when focusing on the self leads to brutal and hurtful rejection from the opposite sex?

Anything but be dishonest and/or emotionally manipulative.

Seduction is wrong. Manipulation is wrong in general, because it infringes on people's right to judge and make rational decisions based on true facts and free of any kind of pressure you may exert on them, directly or indirectly.

There IS a fucking game; we're animals, and we have mating rituals and socially defined roles. To says "seduction is wrong" is to deny a fundamental human behavior. Seduction is how we have sex, not rational discourse.

Animals are not macchiavelian.

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?

Not have sex.

[SoaG]

TL:DR version:
While a lot of PUA stuff and it's practitioners/peddlers are only good for a laugh, there is at least 2 legitimate markets for men that want to meet/date women but don't know what they need to.

Yes, there will still be mistakes made, but by learning even a little by reading a bit, there can be fewer of them.

More success getting to a 1st date makes for a more positive perspective on dating for the guy, that better attitude should lead to a more positive experience for the women he meets. Having a better understanding of modern on/post date etiquette will also lead to a more positive experience for both.

Long winded version:
By far, most PUA stuff is a crock. Most of what does work in-the-moment to get it's followers laid, is counter productive in the long run 5-10 year later when they realize they're now meeting women, not girls, and have no clue how to form an actual relationship.

That said, some of it is useful to 2 groups and the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.

The first group is the obvious one. Younger guys that, for whatever reason (uber-geek, oppressive parents, shy etc.), never developed the requisite social skills through practice during their teens/early 20s.

The second group is guys like me. Middle aged, or older. Suddenly find ourselves divorced or widowed. As loyal and loving husbands we haven't even thought about meeting women in a very long time. What we haven't forgotten in that time, is largely obsolete now. Both because dating in general has changed, and because dating is different when you're older.

Last time around I didn't have to think about how to surreptitiously check for a wedding ring before introducing myself because most women at that age were single, ~40, most aren't.

Let me share a (in retrospect) funny example:
It used to be, even if a date was a disaster, and you never wanted to go out again, you always called the woman the next day to thank her for her time.
Back then the only people with cells were the rich, pimps and drug dealers (and most of those had beepers instead and would call you back from a pay phone) and I could count on 1 hand everyone I knew with a physical answering machine (all of whom had them for home businesses), the only 'feature' for a phone was touch tone instead of rotary pulse dial. So, when making that call, if she didn't answer, it meant she wasn't home so you'd try again later or get a reputation as a rude jerk.

Now if you call the next day you're being 'needy'. If she doesn't answer, she's screening your call (see previous sentence). If you try again later, you're being creepy. Same behaviour, same intentions, 16 years later, VERY different perception on her end. (Then they complain chivalry is dead )

Starting over last year, some 1st dates went very well, and I then blew things this way, and not a clue as to why, until one of them did me the service of telling me such calls are now not only no longer expected, but frowned upon. I was lucky to learn that after only three 1st dates to that point. What about the poor bastard that goes on 50 before being told? Wouldn't those 50 women be happier if someone told him earlier? Odds are, at least one of them would have been a pretty good match. Life is too short to waste because of innocent mistakes, however naive or stupid they may be.

[between3and30]

This is bullshit. So we are suppose to equate ANY AND ALL attempts to pick up, go out with, or otherwise "score" with a girl as misogyny against or objectification of women?

No, but treating women as non-human is a piece of shit move.

Bye!

I don't think I've ever met a PUA that treated women as being non-human. There are without a doubt some out there that believe that, but no more than you would find in the general populace. Actually, I'd say that there was a lower chance of a PUA objectifying women than a male that isn't into pickup, simply because PUAs go out and interact with women, while that other guy just stands at the edge of the dance floor watching the girls, wishing that he could "have that", and talking with his friends about "that hot piece of ass".

PUAs recognize that women and men are not the exact same and don't react in the same ways, but that's not a negative thing. For example, if someone needs a wheelchair ramp, does that mean that no one can use stairs? No. Everyone has different wants and needs. If you want to talk with a group of guys at a bar, literally just go up to them and start talking about the hockey game, but if you want to talk with a group of girls, that topic might not go over so well.

The Mystery Method is about being the most interesting guy out there so that girls will be interested in you and then you both have the chance to mutually get to know each other. An important aspect of the Mystery Method is to demonstrate to the group that you're a cool and interesting guy and to become friends with everyone in the group before you tell the girl that you want to get to know that you want to get to know her. Sometimes passive disinterest isn't enough for that, some girls get hit on so often that you essentially have to say straight out that you're not interested in her. "If I wasn't gay you'd be so mine", "She doesn't stop, how do you guys roll with her?", "You and me would never get along. We'd fight like cats and dogs.", "*right after she touches you* It's five bucks every time you touch, but you're a cutie so I'll give you a couple for free.", etc.. That's what a neg is. It originated as a "negative compliment", but it has turned into meaning anything that disqualifies you from being a potential suitor, anything that says that you're not interested while still being playful.

The Juggler Method is about saying really perceptive things that get her to open up to you and vice versa so that you can learn a lot about each other and really get to know each other right from the get go. It's about building emotional connections and being that guy that everyone wants to be friends with, because he's just so chill.

Mehow's method is about being as friendly and direct as possible. He literally goes up to girls in coffee shops and says "Hi, I'm that guy. I'm the guy that's going to hit on you now.". On paper that might sound creepy, but when you do it with a genuine smile and warm body language, it comes across as really cute.

Nowhere there are women objectified. The goal is to have fun and meet new people in all three of those.

Remember, most pickup artists aren't players, but many players lean pickup theory. They are not the same thing. Pickup is about getting to know people. Players just want to get into bed quickly. Pickup is about creating relationships and learning new skills. Players are all about the number of notches on the bed post.

The guys learning pickup today are the guys who didn't learn those skills from life, and are now spending time studying it and becoming better at it than the guys who learned it from life experience.

[Belial]

I think of the average person interested in PUA as a lonely introvert, not a jerk.

What's interesting is that you seem to think Lonely introverts and Jerks are disjoint sets.

I know plenty of people that are both.

The subset of lonely introverts that say "you mean I can just skip past the part where I relate to other people, male and female both, as fellow human beings and go straight into manipulating women to sleep with me?" are pretty likely to fall into that space on the ol' venn diagram.

[markfiend]

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.

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?

Not have sex.

Bingo.

[dawolf]

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?

Not have sex.

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.



You think only the second should have sex, and not the first?

[savanik]

PUA reminds me a great deal of the mixed martial arts (MMA) community. There are some people who practice MMA as a martial art, and use it to stay in fit, build their self-image, and improve all-around as a person to become confident and better themselves as a human. Then there are those who practice MMA because they want to win. They just want to prove that they're better than the other guy.

Group #1 sees their use of force as a way of testing themselves to see if they're improving. They're usually pretty solid guys. They're often a bit abrasive, because they genuinely don't give a shit about what you think of them, but they can be quite reliable, honorable, show good sportsmanship, and generally are decent human beings. Group #2 sees their use of force as a way of getting what they want. These guys are dicks and don't have enough empathy to fill a thimble.

PUA can be used the same way - either you can use it as a self-improvement tool, or you can use it as a way of manipulating women's psychology to get what you want. The question most people don't ask when picking up the book is, 'is this an ethical method of behavior'.

I am all about romance. Romance is awesome. Seduction is not. The difference between the two is romance is honest.

[FireZs]

Not have sex.

My go-to advice to anyone who asks "I have trouble with women, what can I do?" That, and "lower your standards."

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.

You think only the second should have sex, and not the first?

Absolutely. Because the second guy is the guy women are willing to have sex with. If the first guy is really that good of a good catch he'll marry eventually and get to have sex anyway.

[Wharrgarbl8]

No. I treat other people properly because I think how it affects them. It's the definition of the word empathy. Is reading for comprehension not your strong suit cupcake?

Empathy: The intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another. [Dictionary.com]

Empathy is not defined as you thinking about others. Empathy is essentially the effect on you, from experience of other's. YOU alone experience it and feel the pain/pleasure as a result. It has an external trigger but it is still 100% your emotion.

You planning how to treat about others is the logical result of you making trying to make your empathy a positive emotion. It is not empathy.

[Nic_C]

There is a difference in mentality. The focus should be on yourself, not on others. That way you stay honest and you don't overstep boundaries.

Not overstepping boundaries that is an argument that one strategy is more successful than another, not more moral, right or honest.

No, it's an argument that overstepping people's boundaries is a dick move. Success or otherwise is irrelevant if you've made someone feel uncomfortable or creeped out. Or do you honestly think you'd be happy having a conversation with someone who is only talking to you because they're too polite or afraid to say no to you?

Because seriously: you think men can't win? What about women: if we say a direct no, we're stuck-up bitches; if we make a polite demurral and try to let you down gently (as we're basically trained to from birth), we're leading you on. And if we are interested, and say yes, we're sluts, as at least one person in this thread has suggested.

So what do you do when focusing on yourself (which is what people naturally do) just doesn't work? Really, what is your solution for the men who have no success with your method? There are lots of them out there. Should they just accept their lot as being frustrated and alone? What to do when focusing on the self leads to brutal and hurtful rejection from the opposite sex?

1) No one owes you attention. Not even women, nice as we're encouraged to be.

2) The 'opposite sex' is not a monolith. Just because 9999 women have previously rejected you doesn't mean they all will.

3) Although if 9999 women have rejected you, the common denominator is you. The problem is, you can't get around that by gaming the system or pretending to be someone you're not; you have to *practice* your social skills - in all sorts of contexts, not just purely when you're fishing to get laid - if you want to improve them. Or do you also expect to be able to play the guitar like Hendrix the first time you try, or even the tenth or the twentieth?

A place to start would be thinking about women as individuals, rather than latching onto anyone female in your vicinity simply because they're female and you're "frustrated and alone". Go to places and occasions where you can meet people with similar interests, and start conversations about said interests rather than immediately making it all about how you find them attractive - takes the pressure off both them and you. Bear in mind that many women have learned to be wary around men they don't know, for obvious safety reasons (and that it's not a comment on *you*, personally, just a sadly necessary defence mechanism); also that many women are pretty tired of (or even feel downright insulted by) being approached cold, based purely on how they look/the fact that they're female and outside the home.

[adonis]

Animals are not macchiavelian.

Ok. Many people who practice PUA are scumbags. But as I said, PUA doesn't have to be Machiavellian. The main goal is to learn what type of guy (normatively) females want, and to become that guy. What's wrong with that?

Not have sex.

I guess, at this point, my only answer is that we have incommensurate world views. You're suggesting that someone who hasn't been given an important skillset give up on fulfillment out of some abstract notion of interpersonal honesty.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

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?

Not have sex.

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.



You think only the second should have sex, and not the first?

Well, does somebody want to have sex with the first person? Does somebody want to have sex with the second person?

[Tomo]

Food for thought, from the other side of the issue

http://tynan.com/xkcd

This is actually an excellent blog post that explains the situation very well. Which is probably why no-one has responded to it.

[parsley242]

I think of the average person interested in PUA as a lonely introvert, not a jerk.

What's interesting is that you seem to think Lonely introverts and Jerks are disjoint sets.

I know plenty of people that are both.

The subset of lonely introverts that say "you mean I can just skip past the part where I relate to other people, male and female both, as fellow human beings and go straight into manipulating women to sleep with me?" are pretty likely to fall into that space on the ol' venn diagram.

Ooh. I have to admit that would explain some of the creepier stories about serious PUA personalities.

I guess I suspect that in practice, most guys just learn enough to (A) start conversations with strangers less awkwardly and (B) suggest the possibility of sex less awkwardly, which I think of as good things to learn, and not especially manipulative. But I could be wrong.

[Nic_C]

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?

Not have sex.

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.

You think only the second should have sex, and not the first?

Well, does somebody want to have sex with the first person? Does somebody want to have sex with the second person?

You crazy person with your logic.

[Kiddo]

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.



You think only the second should have sex, and not the first?

Are you saying that good people deserve sex from women? Hint: it's the reek of entitlement that makes me think that batteries are truly a girl's best friend instead of diamonds.

[addams]

Yay, we're venturing into PUA territory. My friend has been really getting into that game ever since reading, uh, The Game. This isn't Randall's first mention of it either.

I suppose if you're not quite understanding this Subculture, you should either watch the 2-season reality show The Pick-up Artist (which was pretty impressive), or maybe Neil Strauss shows how it works on Jessica Alba

Gee Willikers. It is the Feng Shui of interpersonal relationships.
Not so disturbing. Every young woman should read that book!

Bowling balls in bathrooms? (Walks away shaking head and grumbling like Lurch Addams.)

[Nic_C]

Food for thought, from the other side of the issue

http://tynan.com/xkcd

This is actually an excellent blog post that explains the situation very well. Which is probably why no-one has responded to it.

He lost me at:

"(do you REALLY think that’s possible with an extremely hot girl in a club?)"

Dude, do you know any women? I mean, *really* know them? FFS. That's the problem right there: 'hot girl in club' a different species that is never subject to self-doubt, shyness, etc.

[dawolf]

<snip>Two people who are very good friends. </snip>

Well, does somebody want to have sex with the first person? Does somebody want to have sex with the second person?

Few (but some, he's had a couple of relationships) want to have sex with the first person. Hundreds want to have sex with the second person.

The first person, by taking positive steps to improve the way their personality presents (and actually CHANGING their personality a bit as well) is more likely to attract a mate. They aren't looking for one night stands, they want a relationship, and I don't see anything wrong with them taking steps to do so which includes reading The Game and making use of some of the information in there. That is certainly a much more positive viewpoint for them to have than a depressed "no sex for me then...ever" as seems to be the advice above.

The second person could probably write a book about it, and certainly doesn't need any help.

[philsov]

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.

[Tomo]

Well, does somebody want to have sex with the first person? Does somebody want to have sex with the second person?

Your point being.. acting a certain way towards women is fine, as long as you act that way because you were brought up to act that way, and not because you read it on the internet?