1027: "Pickup Artist"

[Belial]

Internet Misogyny 101, aka Being a Creepy Fuck on the Internet For Dummies:

1) If a man implies there might be something wrong with the way you do things, accuse him of "White Knighting"
2) If a woman implies there might be something wrong with the way you do things...wait, women can talk? When did that start?

[FireZs]

So, maybe this will help explain to the PUA apologists the objections, in terms they can understand better: imagine if there existed makeup that can make a woman look nothing like what she normally looks like (like, would make a 5 into a 9), and there was a community dedicated to teaching less physically attractive women how to apply this type of makeup. It would basically be the female equivalent of faking signals of mating fitness, consciously learning how to doing it, and organizing a community for that very purpose. Which is what the PUA community is. Wouldn't it be at least a little disturbing to you?

Of course, such a thing actually exists:
http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/pictures ... akeup.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mu_betP ... re=related

2) If a woman implies there might be something wrong with the way you do things...wait, women can talk? When did that start?

It's been a long thread, but I'm fairly certain no one's actually said anything like "you're a woman, so shut up!"

Wait, can I say that? Would that make me a PUA-apologist? We're not doing the "yer either with us or against us" thing here, are we?

[ahammel]

So, maybe this will help explain to the PUA apologists the objections, in terms they can understand better: imagine if there existed makeup that can make a woman look nothing like what she normally looks like (like, would make a 5 into a 9), and there was a community dedicated to teaching less physically attractive women how to apply this type of makeup. It would basically be the female equivalent of faking signals of mating fitness, consciously learning how to doing it, and organizing a community for that very purpose. Which is what the PUA community is. Wouldn't it be at least a little disturbing to you?

Of course, such a thing actually exists:
http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/pictures ... akeup.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mu_betP ... re=related

If I wasn't laughing at this, I would be crying.

[Belial]

It's been a long thread, but I'm fairly certain no one's actually said anything like "you're a woman, so shut up!"

Nah, I just keep seeing discussions of SAVING PURE INNOCENT MAIDENS, the implications of white knights charging in to save women who don't need or want saving...

...which is only a sensical accusation if you ignore the rather sizeable number of women in here saying the same things.

In other words, it's not "shut up", it's "did someone hear something?"

[San Fran Sam]

It looks like no one has mentioned the infamous PUA from the movie version of M*A*S*H. "Me Lai" Marston. He would ask every woman in the bar if they wanted to have sex with him -- Me lay, you lay. He figured he only had to be successful one time out of a hundred.

[Jave D]

My perspective comes from having been an awkward, shy teenage male obsessed with sex, to having gone and found PUA material that helped me in my overriding goal to get sex, to having "success" in doing so, to having then come to terms with my misogyny, impatience, and the general destruction I caused in my pursuit of "confidence" (through validation by sex and in diluting women to be "fish in the sea") and only in the past few months coming to a place of reform and making amends to those I hurt. In the beginning I placed women on a high pedestal, and got burned - and so PUA was there to console my angry, bitter ego by telling me women were basically just "notches on the belt," each one as good as the other, and to fuel my lust and desire by providing me with a mental framework in which to pursue using women to try to make myself feel better without having to go through things like natural learning to grow as a person or being patient or meeting people just to meet them and not to "pick up" on women.

So yeah, PUA techniques "work" to get sex. Sure. But sex doesn't "work" in giving true confidence, true honesty, or the other true characteristics most people are looking for in a partner. Sex is not some fundamental requirement of living a good life. And the practice of mimicking ways to get sex without having those qualities delays the growth of personality, responsibility, and spirituality.

This is why I find the defend-PUA arguments utterly unconvincing. Every one of them I too might have made, and might have defended vigorously when I was caught up in that mode of thinking and feeling. Where I'm at now, I can see and recognize the ego, the insecurity, the misplaced priority, and the misogynist mindset in it all. I recognize it because I used to display it too.

And as I said it all was part and parcel of my alcoholism too, so whether it was "necessary" for me to grow as a person? Well, plenty of people don't get involved in PUA or sexual imbalance of that sort and still grow as persons, so no I don't think it was necessary, any more than alcoholism is. And it's quite unfortunate that we as a culture tend to place so much emphasis on "the sexual marketplace," on the objectification of sex and of women, and on general misogyny. Because with it, we have folks like Rush Limbaugh, the voice of an entire political party, leading a chorus of anti-woman slurs and sentiments for years on end and we just accept it. We have sexual assault, abuse, and date rape so prevalent in our country, and we just accept it by dismissing the culprits as unrelated to the general culture, as exemptions, as particularly vile people who have no connection with the type of thinking illustrated in anyone who isn't guilty of their exact acts. If we were inclined, as a people, to seek spiritual and personal growth through something other than getting "notches" on our "belts," perhaps this wouldn't be the case.

/step off soapbox now kthx

[The Great Hippo]

My experience from hanging out on internet forums is that an internet debate rarely changes people's mind about an issue. So I'm sorry to disappoint you and all the other moderators out there but the brief interim break from this thread has not changed my views. In fact, I'm a bit suprised that they didn't change theirs given all the information the PUA has provided about their Modus operandi and how they read a girl's body language and disscet their responds; the Mods just goes by the group's apparant stigma, refuse to open their minds a bit, and reject anything the PUA have to say.

Discussion--even antagonistic, hostile discussion--provides an opportunity for us to lay our understanding of the world on the table for everyone to see. It might not change any opinions in the immediate sense, but it can often sew seeds of doubt that develop later on.

I think you are onto the assumption that girls would be offended if guys learn how to pick them up. Aren't you jumping to conclusions right there?

At least one woman in this thread has already expressed precisely that. Besides, there's an easy way to settle this question: GO ASK SOME WOMEN. Have you? Does the PUA community actively listen to and talk to women about how this makes them feel? Is asking women if this sort of situation offends them important to PUA? If not, what does that tell us about PUA's interest in respecting the agency of women?

Your second point regarding "best case assumption" was addressed so many times in so many ways throughout this thead that it's tiring to answer. We check for verbal clues and body language to confirm and some poster has already made a huge list of clues that we look for in confirmation of interest. We are honest about our chances and if the answer is negative we respectfully move on.

Here's the problem: I don't trust PUA's to have women's best interests at heart when they're attempting to ascertain interest. I think PUA's might make a few dishonest assumptions--and might not even realize it. I think all of these problems are solved by being clear and honest with women, and I think that PUA's resistance to being clear and honest with women is extremely telling.

People are dishonest with themselves all the time--particularly when sex is on the line. We apply unfair pressures, manipulate, lie, misdirect, and cheat--whatever it takes to get our rocks off. Do you really think PUA is exempt from this sort of behavior? Do you really think teaching men what to say to best get laid is magically going to also produce circumstances where a woman's agency is respected even more than usual?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I love what you did there, a very manipulative tactic! You were able to switch around the situation and make your opponent explain why what they think is important. Toss in a dehumanizing name calling (literally, weasels aren't human!) and you've now in the course of the debate come full circle. You've gone from claiming P A U tactics are wrong deceitful and immoral, to using them.

You madame, win one internet.

Is that meant to be an accurate characterization of my post?

So, maybe this will help explain to the PUA apologists the objections, in terms they can understand better:

Great. Now how can we frame the objections so that you'll quit misrepresenting them?

[dorght]

I read "The Game" wondering what it is about certain men that allows them to establish that quick spark of interest in women. I wasn't impressed with all the psychological manipulative stuff. At first I was a bit despondent that it worked and what it said about woman's psychology, but then Strauss admitted that once women were exposed to the manipulations the word got around and eventually they stopped working and new territory to employ their shallow trickses had to be found. The one night stand is not a personal objective and that is all the males in that book ever seemed to have achived. The positive I did take away from the book is that women (ok all people) like to be entertained. It seemed to me that often it was the entertainment provided by the eccentric characters (usually contrived) in the book that was the more powerful attractant but the mind games gets the press.
It's good the word is getting out on this crap. Since I've read the book I've been enlightened enough to recognize the behavior in public. People need immunity to manipulation and prior knowledge is a much better and safer inoculant then experience. So lets go out, entertain one another, and just have an enjoyable evening for all.

[FireZs]

So, maybe this will help explain to the PUA apologists the objections, in terms they can understand better:

Great. Now how can we frame the objections so that you'll quit misrepresenting them?

So you think that PUAs are honest and not misrepresenting themselves? I frame dishonesty and misrepresentation in the context of dating in a way to which, given their views of women, they're likely to relate.

But I guess that's too charitable to the enemy that must be destroyed with anger and hatred. Pardon me.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I don't think that makeup is dishonest or misrepresentative. And people have explicitly denied, a lot, that makeup has any of the same problems that dishonest pickup tactics have. So presenting makeup as an analogy by saying that it's objectionable for the same reasons is extremely misleading.

[sophyturtle]

While most of the makeup is really, just make up, I am impressed when eye color, eye shape/size, and facial bone structure are changed by makeup and not photo shop.
Womens are tricksy.

But seriously. PUAs are jerks. They try to trick people into having sex with them. True fact. I know it from seeing quite a few photo shops in my day.

Like it matters what I say here. I mean, that last few times I posted things relating to the topic in a relevant way it was ignored. IGNORE ME.

But yeah, jerks. You totally can't prove other wsie cause then you would be lying. Sure, they might not know they are jerks but shit does not know its shit either.

[FireZs]

I don't think that makeup is dishonest or misrepresentative. And people have explicitly denied, a lot, that makeup has any of the same problems that dishonest pickup tactics have. So presenting makeup as an analogy by saying that it's objectionable for the same reasons is extremely misleading.

Makeup in general isn't, which I think is what people who explicitly mentioned it meant. I think you'd agree that some of the examples in the links I posted are not comparable to the kind of makeup that most women use (just as PUA tactics are not comparable to the kind of social skills that most people would agree are ok in dating).

[The Great Hippo]

Makeup in general isn't, which I think is what people who explicitly mentioned it meant. I think you'd agree that some of the examples in the links I posted are not comparable to the kind of makeup that most women use (just as PUA tactics are not comparable to the kind of social skills that most people would agree are ok in dating).

X is not like Y; A is not like B. This does not mean B is therefore like Y. Even the most extreme examples of make-up aren't very comparable.

While most of the makeup is really, just make up, I am impressed when eye color, eye shape/size, and facial bone structure are changed by makeup and not photo shop.
Womens are tricksy.

Did you know they have two sets of teeth?

[FireZs]

Makeup in general isn't, which I think is what people who explicitly mentioned it meant. I think you'd agree that some of the examples in the links I posted are not comparable to the kind of makeup that most women use (just as PUA tactics are not comparable to the kind of social skills that most people would agree are ok in dating).

X is not like Y; A is not like B. This does not mean B is therefore like Y. Even the most extreme examples of make-up aren't very comparable.

X is an extreme to the point of egregious form of Y; A is an extreme to the point of egregious form of B.

But that's not the point. The point is that considering the emphasis PUAs typically place on looks, I figure this is a good way to show how what they do could be seen as disturbing to the "other side."

So you don't see anything wrong with makeup in the form of the examples I've posted? I see in it similar problems as PUAs have: dishonesty, misrepresentation, and trying to be that which you are not: some kind of false ideal that you've constructed as what the opposite sex desires.

[The Great Hippo]

It's usually very clear when someone's wearing make-up (in all the examples you showed, my immediate reaction was 'wow, that person is wearing a lot of make-up'). But let's pretend it isn't--where's the deception? Is it deceptive for me to drive around in an expensive car that I don't actually own? Maybe I like driving expensive cars. I like how they feel, and I like how cool it makes me look. If you ask me if I own it, and I say 'no', is it still 'deceptive'?

When someone wears make-up, why are they doing that? Is it so they'll 'get laid', or is it because they enjoy looking pretty? Assuming it's the former (which seems to me to be a pretty big assumption), do you think that, were you or anyone else to hook up with someone, and it was to come out that this someone is wearing a lot of make-up to enhance their appearance, the end result would be hurt feelings and general creepiness? 'Oh wow I can't believe your skin isn't nearly as clear as your makeup lead me to believe it was!'

Which statement sounds creepier: "I'm wearing a lot of make-up, because I'm actually no where near this pretty" -- or -- "I've actually attended a dozen or so seminars on what to say to people to get them to sleep with me, and I'm using what I learned from them on you"? Which statement do you think is more likely to terminate a relationship?

[Princess Marzipan]

It looks like no one has mentioned the infamous PUA from the movie version of M*A*S*H. "Me Lai" Marston. He would ask every woman in the bar if they wanted to have sex with him -- Me lay, you lay. He figured he only had to be successful one time out of a hundred.

That's not PUA, though. That's just asking for sex, which I haven't seen anyone say is unreasonable.

My experience from hanging out on internet forums is that an internet debate rarely changes people's mind about an issue. So I'm sorry to disappoint you and all the other moderators out there but the brief interim break from this thread has not changed my views. In fact, I'm a bit suprised that they didn't change theirs given all the information the PUA has provided about their Modus operandi and how they read a girl's body language and disscet their responds; the Mods just goes by the group's apparant stigma, refuse to open their minds a bit, and reject anything the PUA have to say.

That would be fine if the rest of what PUAs here were saying actually indicated that they understand body language and social cues and reacted appropriately. But that video where the guy grabs a girl's hands when she turns to leave is something the PUAs here present as evidence they know what they're talking about. That indicates that maybe they do READ social cues, but they seem ignore them once they convince themselves that they have plausible deniability in attributing a woman's actions to anything OTHER than wanting to be left alone.

On the other hand, girls would actually be quite flattered that guys learned a thing or two to pick them up, instead of guys making clumsy attempt of doing so... they wouldn't always say yes.. but at least they get to see what was offered and be entertained by it...

This sentence? It is not a fact. Odds are that if a girl isn't interested in talking you, she isn't going to be "entertained" by playing How Do I Make Him Leave Me Alone (especially if she's playing the expansion: How Do I Make Sure This Situation Doesn't End With Me Getting Assaulted). There is this assumption that no matter how the conversation goes, everyone had a good time, and that assumption is completely baseless.

imagine if there existed makeup that can make a woman look nothing like what she normally looks like (like, would make a 5 into a 9),

I am very much tiring of the OTHER baseless assumption that there exist objective attractiveness ratings.

My perspective comes from having been an awkward, shy teenage male obsessed with sex, [snip]

/step off soapbox now kthx

PUAs, this perspective is important - that is, those of people who achieve romantic success without PUA tactics. If PUA had been around when I was college I'd probably have gotten into it myself. Thank Zeus I never got the chance before ending up in social situations involving both sexes and figuring things out as I went.




I tried and failed to find this great blog post I read that spelled out what creepiness was and why so many guys seem to accidentally radiate it. "Creepy" is coming to be mean ignorance of or disregard for appropriate social boundary levels, usually in a sexual context. I couldn't find the post. But I found other stuff.

I never claim that I was or wasn't PUA. I read a few tips online here and there, have some positive results, but the biggest thing I learned is what I did wrong in the past and why I wasn't successful back then. I also encourage you to find the cracked.com article and read it. My second post in this thread sums up my position best.

This one?
I liked this depiction of how a PUA views a conversation. (Red means AVOID!!!)

Spoiler:

I don't know how many PUAs are going to give any weight to an article from Pervocracy, since the earlier one that spelled out PRECISELY how PUA tactics can lead a woman to feel coerced into sex a man thinks is fully consensual, but I'll link this anyway.
It's main suggestions for not being creepy:
1) Work on your social skills in general. [PUAs purport to do this, but I see no indication they apply their tactics to interactions with other men, in professional contexts, or with meeting people in general as opposed to with the goal of sex. Which brings us to:]
2) Don't treat your life as a quest for sex.
3) Don't try to "cheat the system" to avoid rejection.
4) Don't get angry or resentful.
5) Don't scare people.
6) Aspire to be a friend to everyone; the sex will follow. [Do PUAs here make FRIENDS with women, or just move on once sex isn't happening?]
7) Brush your teeth. [Brush your teeth brush your mothafuckin teeth!]
The post in full if you'd like more detail: http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/ ... reepy.html

Trigger warning for thank fuck Dennis is a fictional character: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ1lc6KASWg

[Nylonathatep]

At least one woman in this thread has already expressed precisely that. Besides, there's an easy way to settle this question: GO ASK SOME WOMEN. Have you? Does the PUA community actively listen to and talk to women about how this makes them feel? Is asking women if this sort of situation offends them important to PUA? If not, what does that tell us about PUA's interest in respecting the agency of women?

In this thread there's also a positive experience with a poster approaching women using some of the less discrete methods in PUA and have a positive experience with a women he approached. The fact that you have to question about 'how it makes a women feel' already means that you already arrived at the conclusion that women would act negatively when people uses the skills being taught in PUA. In reality, Some women likes being approached, some enjoy no-strings-attach meetup and some enjoys ("Gasp") Sex with complete strangers. You are also making an assumption that all women feels that way, and they don't all feel the same way about it.

People are dishonest with themselves all the time--particularly when sex is on the line. We apply unfair pressures, manipulate, lie, misdirect, and cheat--whatever it takes to get our rocks off. Do you really think PUA is exempt from this sort of behavior? Do you really think teaching men what to say to best get laid is magically going to also produce circumstances where a woman's agency is respected even more than usual?

Girls can, and do say no. (Check the post where I posted my example) You are forgetting that it takes two people in this to work... the guy to approach, and the girl to accept the approach. That's why we keep checking for stuff like rings on a girl's finger ( to make sure we aren't hitting on married women/women that are engaged), that we check if the girl is responsive, etc. Otherwise it might as well be rape. The general assumption about PUA is that they are all out to get laid, while in reality is about having self-esteem, courage, and the most important thing of all.. to have fun.

What I've posted is nothing new to this thread. In fact the question that people have been asking ever since the thread is unlocked has all been asked and answer in one form or another. There's no new material except for people taking subtle shots at others, troll baiting, being a strawman, and other juvenile behaviour.

Please lock up this thread. It's pretty obvious at this point that people would argue against PUA base on the preception that they already have against it. It's call confirmation Bias and they'll ignore any fact that was presented that didn't agree to their views. If you do feel compel to... pretend that you won this argument and collect one free internet coupon on the way out. Thanks

[FireZs]

It's usually very clear when someone's wearing make-up (in all the examples you showed, my immediate reaction was 'wow, that person is wearing a lot of make-up'). But let's pretend it isn't--where's the deception? Is it deceptive for me to drive around in an expensive car that I don't actually own? Maybe I like driving expensive cars. I like how they feel, and I like how cool it makes me look. If you ask me if I own it, and I say 'no', is it still 'deceptive'?

When someone wears make-up, why are they doing that? Is it so they'll 'get laid', or is it because they enjoy looking pretty? Assuming it's the former (which seems to me to be a pretty big assumption), do you think that, were you or anyone else to hook up with someone, and it was to come out that this someone is wearing a lot of make-up to enhance their appearance, the end result would be hurt feelings and general creepiness? 'Oh wow I can't believe your skin isn't nearly as clear as your makeup lead me to believe it was!'

Which statement sounds creepier: "I'm wearing a lot of make-up, because I'm actually no where near this pretty" -- or -- "I've actually attended a dozen or so seminars on what to say to women to get them to sleep with me, and I'm using what I learned from them on you"? Which statement do you think is more likely to terminate a relationship?

Where's the deception? The makeup in question is clearly not meant to enhance what is already there, but to give the impression that you naturally look a certain way when you clearly don't (bone structure, eye size/shape etc). And even if you can tell the difference, many people can't, and arguing that because you can, that makes it ok, is like the PUA people arguing that it's ok that they do what they do because the women "know what's going on."

If you tell someone you're into PUA stuff, that's probably relationship-ending. If you use this level of makeup, and you show who you're dating what you look like without it, that's probably also relationship ending. Both relationships would have been built on assumptions that turned out to be lies.

[BlueLaughter]

I liked this comic up to the last phrase uttered by the woman, "It won't help." That last remark was completely unnecessary, and probably untrue. Why discourage people from thinking about their lives and trying to improve it? If it at least gets them to stop mediocre negging, that'll be an improvement.

Panel 2: Negging (at least as described here) is usually stupid and destructive. I'm of the philosophy that relationships should make all parties feel better about themselves, and any destructive ones should be abandoned (barring family) or at least neutralized. The only time it seems to serve any useful purpose is if other parties are too full of themselves already, and even then, what right do you have to try and bring them down?

Panel 3: "Talk to them like a fucking human being." Perhaps if the pickup guy is a normal guy, this might actually make sense. I can understand the overall sentiment. However, as said before this just doesn't work with a lot if not most people. Further, what does this even mean? Apparently I don't talk to most people 'like human beings'. Everyone develops different communication styles, and if you're young and have failed with women you'll think you're doing something wrong even if you're not. Telling most people to do that is absolutely useless, perhaps as helpful as telling them to try harder. Why tell someone to go for the normal, the mundane, the mediocre?

Panel 8: Personally, I think the guy deserved it. This response is far more honest and helpful than a 'fuck off'. It prevents the guy from abusing any further targets. Now, if this had just been a hello, it would have been harsh, but this guy was deliberately being a dick to her.

on PUA in general:
Honestly, I found reading pickup material immensely improving to me as a person. That said, I took it with a grain of salt and tried only to use what works on improving the self as a whole. Although Ladder Theory and the friend-zone are interesting models, they're just not completely true and if believed can end up sabotaging real relationships. I found David DeAngelo one of the better tip givers out there, just through his free stuff. The type of person he wants to project, and the type of person I want to be aren't remotely the same, but there was still enough in there to plant a seed of awareness in certain areas.

Things I believe to be true after the fact:
1. Most women just aren't compatible with you, just as you aren't compatible with most women. You have to make attempts with a lot of women before you find the right ones. That also means dealing with a lot of rejection.
2. If you really want to, you can work at yourself or projected image and find women who will sleep with you, but do you really want to? Is it worth the effort and emotional baggage later on?
3. There can be a vicious catch-22 where you don't have any confidence because you haven't succeeded with women, and haven't succeeded because you don't have any confidence. Honestly, you can break the cycle by working at either, but working at your confidence and rest of your life first is probably more productive.

(Note, I only read the first 10 and last page of comments)

[Princess Marzipan]

Please lock up this thread. It's pretty obvious at this point that people would argue against PUA base on the preception that they already have against it. It's call confirmation Bias and they'll ignore any fact that was presented that didn't agree to their views. If you do feel compel to... pretend that you won this argument and collect one free internet coupon on the way out. Thanks

You can feel absolutely free to stop posting any time. No one's forcing you to talk. We don't have anything to grab onto if you start to walk away from your computer, so you won't even have go through the verification process where we ask you more questions while holding on to you.

[FireZs]

That's not PUA, though. That's just asking for sex, which I haven't seen anyone say is unreasonable.

I saw plenty of people saying effectively "if all you care about is casual sex and all you do is try to get it, you're a terrible person."

imagine if there existed makeup that can make a woman look nothing like what she normally looks like (like, would make a 5 into a 9),

I am very much tiring of the OTHER baseless assumption that there exist objective attractiveness ratings.

Again, I'm putting it in words they can understand. I agree that putting a flat number on attractiveness is inaccurate, even though I would argue that some people are considered attractive by more people than others, and this in practice makes them more attractive than others.

[Princess Marzipan]

Again, I'm putting it in words they can understand. I agree that putting a flat number on attractiveness is inaccurate, even though I would argue that some people are considered attractive by more people than others, and this in practice makes them more attractive than others.

It also has no bearing on what body types or personalities they themselves find attractive. The only application of these ratings that I've seen is in determining if a woman is too ugly or attractive to be approached. It's a crap shoot no matter what they look like, why use numbers? Just talk to pretty people if you want to.

[sophyturtle]

Please lock up this thread. It's pretty obvious at this point that people would argue against PUA base on the preception that they already have against it. It's call confirmation Bias and they'll ignore any fact that was presented that didn't agree to their views. If you do feel compel to... pretend that you won this argument and collect one free internet coupon on the way out. Thanks

You can feel absolutely free to stop posting any time. No one's forcing you to talk. We don't have anything to grab onto if you start to walk away from your computer, so you won't even have go through the verification process where we ask you more questions while holding on to you.

I might try to force him to talk by degrading him a little first. Even when he tells me to go away I will keep trying because he is playing hard to get and I just need to convince him. I will pretend to be interested and casually compare him to someone who might be more eloquent/correct. Then I will roofy him and move his fingers and pretend he is posting of his own free will.

I got the PUA thing down right guys? I mean, maybe without the roofy, but you never know what you will need til you get there.

[The Great Hippo]

In this thread there's also a positive experience with a poster approaching women using some of the less discrete methods in PUA and have a positive experience with a women he approached. The fact that you have to question about 'how it makes a women feel' already means that you already arrived at the conclusion that women would act negatively when people uses the skills being taught in PUA. In reality, Some women likes being approached, some enjoy no-strings-attach meetup and some enjoys ("Gasp") Sex with complete strangers. You are also making an assumption that all women feels that way, and they don't all feel the same way about it.

Emphasis mine.

Stop here. I want you to understand something.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are women who enjoy no-strings-attached sex with perfect strangers. I'll do you one better: There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are women who, upon being informed of PUA, would respond with 'heck yeah, hope I find me one of those guys tonight!'.

Those are real women, and I have no quarrel with them. I have no quarrel with them having sex with you. I have no quarrel with you approaching them for sex. Go nuts. Have fun. Fuck like rabbits. No offense, no foul.

Here is my problem--this statement right here:

The fact that you have to question about 'how it makes a women feel' already means that you already arrived at the conclusion that women would act negatively when people uses the skills being taught in PUA.

This. This right here.

This is what makes PUA the nauseous, vile, anti-woman shit-burger in my mother-fucking Happy Meal.

Here's what I'm saying: "Hey, even as a guy, this creeps me the fuck out. It feels like a conspiracy against women. I think it's important that you ask women what they think about PUA, and women be included in this discussion, so you can best determine if what you're doing creeps them the fuck out, too."

Here's your response: "The fact that you have to question about 'how it makes a woman feel' already means that you already arrived at the conclusion that..."

Do you even understand what the fuck you're doing here? The fact that I'm even asking the question of how women feel about this means I'm wrong? Fucking seriously? For realsies?!

If I'm wrong merely for asking 'how does this make a woman feel?', how the fuck do you expect to even begin respecting women's agency?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Apart from that, Nylonathatep, you misunderstand Hippo's challenge. No doubt there are many women who react warmly to pickup techniques (which is why those techniques are used). But the question is whether the average woman would be expected to react warmly to pickup if it is presented as pickup.

[The Great Hippo]

If you tell someone you're into PUA stuff, that's probably relationship-ending. If you use this level of makeup, and you show who you're dating what you look like without it, that's probably also relationship ending. Both relationships would have been built on assumptions that turned out to be lies.

My experience has been that people take make-up a lot less seriously than outright verbal manipulation. I think that, in a lot of cases, it's safe to assume that the people around you are enhancing their appearance for the sake of looking pretty--this is a safe 'game' to play, because the vast majority of people are in on it. Even if they aren't, when you use make-up to enhance your appearance, you actually are prettier; if you never take your make-up off, what's the difference? I guess you have to take it off to shower, but hey--you have to take off your clothes to shower too, right?

For me, this is largely about the consequences of our actions. There are women who aren't 'in' on the manipulation that PUA espouses; they're either unaware, or completely opposed. Continuing to play this 'game' with them--when they are not informed or consenting--is unfair and, frankly, creepy as fuck.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Only I would say that this concern about fairness and informed consent is not consequentialist at all. It's a view that people should not be treated as unwitting tools for your amusement. I believe the most famous statement of this view was already quoted on page 1.

[FireZs]

If you tell someone you're into PUA stuff, that's probably relationship-ending. If you use this level of makeup, and you show who you're dating what you look like without it, that's probably also relationship ending. Both relationships would have been built on assumptions that turned out to be lies.

My experience has been that people take make-up a lot less seriously than outright verbal manipulation. I think that, in a lot of cases, it's safe to assume that the people around you are enhancing their appearance for the sake of looking pretty--this is a safe 'game' to play, because the vast majority of people are in on it. Even if they aren't, when you use make-up to enhance your appearance, you actually are prettier; if you never take your make-up off, what's the difference? I guess you have to take it off to shower, but hey--you have to take off your clothes to shower too, right?

For me, this is largely about the consequences of our actions. There are women who aren't 'in' on the manipulation that PUA espouses; they're either unaware, or completely opposed. Continuing to play this 'game' with them--when they are not informed or consenting--is unfair and, frankly, creepy as fuck.

People take make-up a lot less seriously because most makeup isn't that extreme. And most people are unaware of the possibility that makeup can go that far.

This is eerie to me, but what you're saying sounds to me very much like what the PUA apologists are saying, but in reverse: "everyone knows how this game works," "if after using PUA methods I actually have that personality all the time, what's the difference?" Deception and misrepresentation should not be ok, regardless of which gender engages in it.

[The Great Hippo]

Perhaps it's naive, but it's my view that treating people as mere tools for your amusement--treating them unfairly, or as if they did not have agency, or even free will--almost inevitably leads to bad consequences.

To be honest, if a PUA managed to build a strong, healthy relationship that lead to a happy home-life and a loving family--all based on one terrible, awful, hateful, irresponsible lie--I wouldn't care. But I suspect the majority of PUAs aren't going to accomplish that, and the support this culture receives leads to more pain and turmoil than genuinely healthy, strong relationships.

Including women in the discussion--reaching out to women and creating a dialogue to foster a better, more honest sex life for everyone involved--strikes me as the superior solution. So long as PUAs aren't including women in their efforts, I can't help but parse it as a conspiracy against women--and a conspiracy against women is fertile soil for angst and woe.

This is eerie to me, but what your saying sounds to me very much like what the PUA apologists are saying, but in reverse: "everyone knows how this game works," "if after using PUA methods I actually have that personality all the time, what's the difference?" Deception and misrepresentation should not be ok, regardless of which gender engages in it.

Bullshit. If women were getting together in seminars and discussing various ways to talk me into having sex with them, I'd find that creepy as hell, too.

Life is full of games. Some of them are more obvious than others; others are more fair. Can you really construct a reasonable scenario where someone will be emotionally harmed by a partner wearing lots and lots of make-up? Is the purpose of wearing make-up to convince you to sleep with me, or just to be pretty?

[Belial]

Also, "I'm trying to short-circuit your social programming to trap you" and "I'm trying to make you think I'm prettier than I am" are two completely different levels of bad.

[netcrusher88]

Again, I'm putting it in words they can understand. I agree that putting a flat number on attractiveness is inaccurate, even though I would argue that some people are considered attractive by more people than others, and this in practice makes them more attractive than others.

I'm curious who "they" is.

Also what Belial said. Though I think a better description would be "I'm trying to manipulate you through abuse of societal memes" versus "I'm trying to meet the standards of societal memes imposed upon me".

[FireZs]

This is eerie to me, but what your saying sounds to me very much like what the PUA apologists are saying, but in reverse: "everyone knows how this game works," "if after using PUA methods I actually have that personality all the time, what's the difference?" Deception and misrepresentation should not be ok, regardless of which gender engages in it.

Bullshit. If women were getting together in seminars and discussing various ways to talk me into having sex with them, I'd find that creepy as hell, too.

Life is full of games. Some of them are more obvious than others; others are more fair. Can you really construct a reasonable scenario where someone will be emotionally harmed by a partner wearing lots and lots of make-up? Is the purpose of wearing make-up to convince you to sleep with me, or just to be pretty?

Women ARE getting together in seminars to discuss ways to apply makeup like the links I provided. A reasonable scenario where someone is emotionally harmed by a partner wearing lots of makeup is easy: girl gets guy to marry her, and then he finds out she doesn't look like that at all. And yes, people do do this in hopes of "marrying better."

Also, "I'm trying to short-circuit your social programming to trap you" and "I'm trying to make you think I'm prettier than I am" are two completely different levels of bad.

"I'm trying to make you think I'm more social than I am" is the equivalent framing that PUA-apologists have been using. It's fairly obvious that that's a gross understatement of what is going on. The same with "I'm trying to make you think I'm prettier than I am" as it applies to the examples I gave (did people even click on the links?). Both are about convincing people they possess attributes they clearly do not.

Again, I'm putting it in words they can understand. I agree that putting a flat number on attractiveness is inaccurate, even though I would argue that some people are considered attractive by more people than others, and this in practice makes them more attractive than others.

I'm curious who "they" is.

Also what Belial said. Though I think a better description would be "I'm trying to manipulate you through abuse of societal memes" versus "I'm trying to meet the standards of societal memes imposed upon me".

"They" being PUA-apologists in this thread. And the descriptions that you used would be used by a PUA-apologist, only in the reverse. Makeup is a societal meme, and using it in the way I've linked to is clearly abuse; PUAs think that what they're training to become is what society wants them to be, in order to be masculine.

[The Great Hippo]

Women ARE getting together in seminars to discuss ways to apply makeup like the links I provided. A reasonable scenario where someone is emotionally harmed by a partner wearing lots of makeup is easy: girl gets guy to marry her, and then he finds out she doesn't look like that at all. And yes, people do do this in hopes of "marrying better."

Is the purpose of these seminars to convince people to have sex with them, or to look prettier? Is it reasonable to expect two people getting married to have never seen each other without make-up?

[Shivahn]

Also, "I'm trying to short-circuit your social programming to trap you" and "I'm trying to make you think I'm prettier than I am" are two completely different levels of bad.

I kind of want to reiterate what has also been mentioned a couple of times, which is that makeup pretty often has nothing to do with other people. Myself, and all the (other?) women I know wear makeup mostly at home, even when no one's going to see it, because sometimes it's nice to look in the mirror and see someone pretty. Some people would wear it even if no one else could see it! Makeup doesn't have to, and in my experience, rarely (or, more accurately, never, but I know that's not universally true) is done for the pleasure of other people, let alone to misguide them.

It's really not all about other people, it turns out.

[Nylonathatep]

Stop here. I want you to understand something.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are women who enjoy no-strings-attached sex with perfect strangers. I'll do you one better: There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are women who, upon being informed of PUA, would respond with 'heck yeah, hope I find me one of those guys tonight!'.

Those are real women, and I have no quarrel with them. I have no quarrel with them having sex with you. I have no quarrel with you approaching them for sex. Go nuts. Have fun. Fuck like rabbits. No offense, no foul.

In that case we are in agreement. PUA are just methods of approaching those women that do want these things listed above.

Here is my problem--this statement right here:

The fact that you have to question about 'how it makes a women feel' already means that you already arrived at the conclusion that women would act negatively when people uses the skills being taught in PUA.

This. This right here.

This is what makes PUA the nauseous, vile, anti-woman shit-burger in my mother-fucking Happy Meal.


Here's what I'm saying: "Hey, even as a guy, this creeps me the fuck out. It feels like a conspiracy against women. I think it's important that you ask women what they think about PUA, and women be included in this discussion, so you can best determine if what you're doing creeps them the fuck out, too."

Here's your response: "The fact that you have to question about 'how it makes a woman feel' already means that you already arrived at the conclusion that..."

Do you even understand what the fuck you're doing here? The fact that I'm even asking the question of how women feel about this means I'm wrong? Fucking seriously? For realsies?!

If I'm wrong merely for asking 'how does this make a woman feel?', how the fuck do you expect to even begin respecting women's agency?

[
Again you are making the assumption that PUA assumes all women wanted sex. Didn't I also stated in that post that there's ways like innocently bumping a girl's elbow and knees, watching how her body leans toward you, verbal cues, etc that checks whether the women are interested. (if you didn't see it, or choose to ignore that part, and instead take a part of the quote then argue against it... congratulation... Conformation Bias) We aren't using that techniques to attract and undermined girls.. but to differentiate between those that who aren't interested to those who do. So not only did I address your point right there, it also shows that PUA respects women by not just making sweeping generalization about them, but accept that they have a choice with their sexuality. How about that!


TL:DR The fact that it creeps you out doesn't mean it creeps the girls out. If you feel offended by it.. don't even read the stuff in PUA.

But enough questions about me Hippo... Let me shoot some questions at you instead:

1) You've been seeing this girl everyday at the bus stop. You like the girl, but you don't know if she likes you or not. You know nothing about her. You don't even know her name. Describe how you approach her and how you can tell if your feels are reciprocated.

2) You walked into a bar. There might be girls that are interested for one night stand, there are girls there are just to have fun and aren't interested. How can you tell one group from the other. (Hint: chances are none of them are interested in sex at all.)

[FireZs]

Women ARE getting together in seminars to discuss ways to apply makeup like the links I provided. A reasonable scenario where someone is emotionally harmed by a partner wearing lots of makeup is easy: girl gets guy to marry her, and then he finds out she doesn't look like that at all. And yes, people do do this in hopes of "marrying better."

Is the purpose of these seminars to convince people to have sex with them, or to look prettier? Is it reasonable to expect two people getting married to have never seen each other without make-up?

If you notice, these examples are from asia, where people still go through matchmakers and have the family help with finding mates, so it's absolutely reasonable to expect two people getting married to have never seen each other without makeup in this context.

I kind of want to reiterate what has also been mentioned a couple of times, which is that makeup pretty often has nothing to do with other people. Myself, and all the (other?) women I know wear makeup mostly at home, even when no one's going to see it, because sometimes it's nice to look in the mirror and see someone pretty. Some people would wear it even if no one else could see it! Makeup doesn't have to, and in my experience, rarely (or, more accurately, never, but I know that's not universally true) is done for the pleasure of other people, let alone to misguide them.

It's really not all about other people, it turns out.

As I said, this sounds suspiciously like the "I don't do this, I use these techniques for good, and I never take it that far, but I feel compelled to defend the community that does" defense offered by the PUA-apologists.

[dawolf]

wow, thread still going? And still with the two sides, with a few in the middle?

Let's put my side (which is in the middle, basically).

The following are things that will help with picking up people, which are commonly told to people and which I don't see any controversy about

1) Improve appearance
2) Improve personal grooming
3) Get physically fitter
4) Be more confident
5) Be more interesting
6) Listen to the other person, try and have a conversation
7) Learn a little basic body language (arms closed/arms open) so you have an idea of if the person is interested
Don't try and chat up a girl with a wedding ring

Yet it seems that if you go to a lecture, labelled PUA, which tells you to do 1-8 AND NOTHING ELSE there are some people who consider this bad. I know I've just setup a strawman of sorts.

Yet 1-8 are probably well over 50% of all you'd learn (based purely on my life experiences, and reading The Game and nothing else), and again I see nothing wrong with any of them.


There is a dark side. There is all the verbal stuff, there is negging, and playing on emotions. The idea of having some steady patter that you speak to a new girl seems frankly weird to me.

But unless you make the effort to separate out the dark side, you are painting with a negative brush things that really aren't negative at all.

[The Great Hippo]

Again you are making the assumption that PUA assumes all women wanted sex. Didn't I also stated in that post that there's ways like innocently bumping a girl's elbow and knees, watching how her body leans toward you, verbal cues, etc that checks whether the women are interested. We aren't using that techniques to attract and undermined girls.. but to differentiate between those that who are interested and those who do. So not only did I address your point right there, it also shows that PUA respects women by not just making sweeping generalization about them, but accept that they have a choice with their sexuality. How about that!

Then why the fuck aren't women included in the discussion? Are you afraid that, in their wild desperation to have wholly consensual sex with you, they'll prevent you from showing off your moves?

I'm not assuming that PUA assumes all women want sex. I've never said anything like that. Stop projecting your own insecurities on me and give reading the words I'm typing a try: The problem is that PUA doesn't include women in the discussion on how to best have sex with them.

Is this really that hard to comprehend?

[Shivahn]

I kind of want to reiterate what has also been mentioned a couple of times, which is that makeup pretty often has nothing to do with other people. Myself, and all the (other?) women I know wear makeup mostly at home, even when no one's going to see it, because sometimes it's nice to look in the mirror and see someone pretty. Some people would wear it even if no one else could see it! Makeup doesn't have to, and in my experience, rarely (or, more accurately, never, but I know that's not universally true) is done for the pleasure of other people, let alone to misguide them.

It's really not all about other people, it turns out.

As I said, this sounds suspiciously like the "I don't do this, I use these techniques for good, and I never take it that far, but I feel compelled to defend the community that does" defense offered by the PUA-apologists.

Yep, I sure defended the people using makeup to deceive people there.