1027: "Pickup Artist"

[The Great Hippo]

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.

Wait, what? So we're talking about a situation where other people are choosing my partner for me? So whether or not I like how you look is pretty much irrelevant to start with? So... what's the problem again?

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.

Can you please stop with the false equivalencies? You haven't demonstrated that make-up is comparable to PUA. You just keep saying it is, and keep glossing over all the context that demonstrates otherwise. I'll ask for the third time: Am I wearing make-up so you'll have sex with me, or so I'll feel pretty?

[FireZs]

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.

Glad you agree, then.

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.

Wait, what? So we're talking about a situation where other people are choosing my partner for me? So whether or not I like how you look is pretty much irrelevant to start with? So... what's the problem again?

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.

Can you please stop with the false equivalencies? You haven't demonstrated that make-up is comparable to PUA. You just keep saying it is, and keep glossing over all the context that demonstrates otherwise. I'll ask for the third time: Am I wearing make-up so you'll have sex with me, or so I'll feel pretty?

That's not how those things work. The meeting is arranged, and if they like each other they'll get to meet again for a number of times, and then the two people decide if they want to marry on their own. In this context, it's perfectly possible that the two people won't see each other without makeup before they're married.

Your question is nonsensical. Women don't go to seminars to get someone to have sex with them, the closest equivalent might be seminars to learn how to "land a good husband." It's like if I asked you "Are PUAs going to seminars to learn how to be a good husband?"

[Nylonathatep]

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?

Looks like it is really hard to comprehend... I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that why PUA don't have girls input in their discussion? never heard of female wingmen? I myself have female friends that I talk to regularly (and no, we never have sex and have no feelings for each other... just pure friendship... oh look we aren't monsters that every girls despise!!!) and they actually gave me tips or two on how to deal with girls, or help me analysis a situation (and other non relationship related stuff... like Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and her two adorable cats=^^=.), Or how about the fact that a guy have to understand female psychology to actually pick up and interpret those verbal cues and body language. I don't know what you qualify as input but again.. it takes two to play the game. (when 1 person plays the game.. it's call fapping )

I think I caught you assuming too much again.

Final word: PUA isn't even all about sex... see how I never even mention having sex with girls in that post?

[The Great Hippo]

That's not how those things work. The meeting is arranged, and if they like each other they'll get to meet again for a number of times, and then the two people decide if they want to marry on their own. In this context, it's perfectly possible that the two people won't see each other without makeup before they're married.

Okay. That sounds like a situation ripe for deceptiveness and unhappiness. I'm not comfortable making a deeper assessment, though, because I don't understand the context.

The fact that this example has narrowed as the discussion went on--first, it was any extreme make-over--then, it was extreme make-overs with the intent of landing a husband or partner--then, it was extreme make-overs with the intent of landing a husband that happen in the context of match-making, which is primarily a thing in Asia--should demonstrate to you just how vastly difficult it is to bring this to bare against PUA. You're talking about a completely different thing in a completely different context, and trying to tell us how we're all bizarro PUA-advocates for defending it outside of this context.

EDIT:

(and no, we never have sex and have no feelings for each other... just pure friendship... oh look we aren't monsters that every girls despise!!!)

I never said that. I never even implied it. Stop. Projecting. Your. Insecurities. On. Me. And. Read. My. Posts.

Including women in on the discussion means asking the women you're trying to sleep with whether or not the PUA thing weirds them the fuck out. If they really don't care--if they really want this--then why the fuck don't you tell them what you're up to?

[FireZs]

That's not how those things work. The meeting is arranged, and if they like each other they'll get to meet again for a number of times, and then the two people decide if they want to marry on their own. In this context, it's perfectly possible that the two people won't see each other without makeup before they're married.

Okay. That sounds like a situation ripe for deceptiveness and unhappiness. I'm not comfortable making a deeper assessment, though, because I don't understand the context.

The fact that this example has narrowed as the discussion went on--first, it was any extreme make-over--then, it was extreme make-overs with the intent of landing a husband or partner--then, it was extreme make-overs with the intent of landing a husband that happen in the context of match-making, which is primarily a thing in Asia--should demonstrate to you just how vastly difficult it is to bring this to bare against PUA. You're talking about a completely different thing in a completely different context, and trying to tell us how we're all bizarro PUA-advocates for defending it outside of this context.

I only brought it up to illustrate to PUA apologists how their side looks to us. I think even the general case would apply from a PUA's perspective, since any physically attractive woman would be fair game to them. It's a thought experiment, and the fact that there's a real-world example of it is just a bonus.

Edit: I really didn't expect that there would be this much objection to it. It's also interesting that there's been no pro-PUA response to it; only from anti-PUA people.

[The Great Hippo]

Read your original post and you might understand why. You're describing a possible scenario that could happen as a PUA equivalent; we're arguing that it wouldn't be. You defended your point by falling back on a situation that is similar, but has a buttload of context unique to its culture which makes it--possibly--similar to PUA (but probably not really, because there's a ton more shit to consider).

Basically you said 'Here's an imaginary situation that's similar to PUA, except gender-reversed', we all said 'No, that's not like this at all', and you said 'It is if I add X, Y, and Z to it!'.

[Nylonathatep]

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.

I think someone addressed that point before. One guy doing it doesn't mean everyone in the group does it. They even describe the 3 generations of PUA (Mystery Method/CTL/SDA???) The reason why we are still having this argument is certain individual decided to read parts of the literature, makes general assumption, and then have assumed bias and prejudices against everyone in the group.

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:

Not this one... This one:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18611_th ... chool.html

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

[/quote]

again you are going by the stigma and presumed facts about PUA here.
1) You are assuming that our general social skills didn't benefit from stuff in PUA. There's another example of a guy that, in addition to going to PUA seminars, actually does Resume lecture, Sales coaching, Dating Coaching, Interview coaching... ofcourse then everyone made the worst assumption and accused him of being a manipulative bastard. GG
2) How many times did I have to tell you people it isn't about sex. It's about having the self-esteem and understanding how to approach women... tired of typing this.
3) If we avoid rejection.. we won't even approach them in the first place.
4) Only scrubs gets angry or resentful.. Pick up artist moves on if they don't sense interest
5) *boo!*
6 & 7) you are assuming we aren't?

Princess, you are assuming that we are just some creep that lives in the basement and doesn't socialize (how does one go to bars and clubs and pick up girls if they don't go out and socialized anyways???) . Some of us WERE those people; we keep pondering to ourselves why girls don't like us. Stuff like PUA, ladder theory gives us an answer and a solution so we stop being that creep that lives across the street, come out of our shell, and becoming a better person over all. Stop dehumanizing us and paint us in such a negative way!

Ofcourse being you, you'll never even acknowledge that point.

[The Great Hippo]

ladder theory

Oh sweet Jesus titties.

[FireZs]

Read your original post and you might understand why. You're describing a possible scenario that could happen as a PUA equivalent; we're arguing that it wouldn't be. You defended your point by falling back on a situation that is similar, but has a buttload of context unique to its culture which makes it--possibly--similar to PUA (but probably not really, because there's a ton more shit to consider).

Basically you said 'Here's an imaginary situation that's similar to PUA, except gender-reversed', we all said 'No, that's not like this at all', and you said 'It is if I add X, Y, and Z to it!'.

Yeah, but that's like saying "talking to girls is terrible" "no it's not" "it is if I add X, Y and Z to it!"

I never said makeup in general is like PUA, nor did I even say extreme makeup like the ones I linked to is like PUA. I'm saying using extreme makeup like the ones I linked to with the intent of getting an advantage in dating is like PUA. My original post is meant to frame the scenario from the eyes of a PUA, like if they wanted to hit on a pretty girl, spent a lot of effort, only to find out she was actually ugly (yes, it's superficial, but they're superficial).

Your response is that people never do that, so I showed you an example where people actually do. On the spectrum of ok to terrible, just as there's working on social skills and confidence all the way to full-blown PUA, there's putting on a little makeup all the way to crazy makeup to land a better husband.

[The Great Hippo]

I'm saying using extreme makeup like the ones I linked to with the intent of getting an advantage in dating is like PUA.

Oh. Okay. So yeah, you're wrong about this, for the reasons I and others already explained. In the one very specific example you cited with tons of mitigating circumstances, you might not be wrong, but the truth is I don't know enough to say.

Can we move on?

[Weeks]

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.

Glad you agree, then.

Ugh. Look. I'm sure you're being sarcastic here, but in case you aren't, no, Shivahn didn't defend those who use makeup to deceive.

Like, I can't believe you can't see the difference. Makeup is non-selective. You apply it to yourself. You can't choose to apply makeup to some people and not others, because it's STUCK ON YOUR FACE. Even if you don't want to affect a certain group of people, they will inevitably be able to see your face.

You CAN apply PUA tactics to only some people, particularly the ones you are interested in. The rest don't get this and to them you might seem like any other person.

So while you can never tell if someone wears makeup to deceive or not, PUA tactics always deceive.

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

It's hilarious because I think it's obvious that these women are wearing makeup in the after pics, and some of them looked perfectly attractive to me without makeup, while others looked unattractive to me with makeup. But maybe I'm wrong or something.

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".

Yep. Couldn't agree more.

[Nylonathatep]

Including women in on the discussion means asking the women you're trying to sleep with whether or not the PUA thing weirds them the fuck out. If they really don't care--if they really want this--then why the fuck don't you tell them what you're up to?

I think that's why We are having this discussion, and in doing so, as you elegantly put, plant the seed to change people's mind and to change the poor perception of PUA. Also don't assume that PUA is all about sex.

Finally there's really nothing deceptive about PUA, so we don't tell them? You are also assumption that we are some sort of world wide organization conspiracy/Terrorist group like Al Queda or Illuminati. In reality people make have just stumble onto the internet and learn about PUA, or just went to one of their seminars. So don't expect us to flash our membership card at girls before we approach them. (Although that'll be a cool idea.)

So no Hippo.. the fact that we didn't tell them we are from the PUA is the fact that we aren't from the PUA. It's not an organization, just a bunch of people passing ideas around on how to approach girls.

Is your next silly argument going to be about how PUA doesn't actually tell the girls the specific technique they are using against them when doing pickup? That'll be lol-worthy indeed.

Also you have to state your argument more concisely next time. Re-read what you wrote out loud and see if it makes sense. Adding swear words doesn't help in defining your points either.

Edit: done editing my post. You may now begin to criticize every spelling mistake in order to invalidate my argument Weeks!

[Weeks]

Re-read what you wrote out loud and see if it makes sense.

What is Al Quade?

[folkhero]

I never said makeup in general is like PUA, nor did I even say extreme makeup like the ones I linked to is like PUA. I'm saying using extreme makeup like the ones I linked to with the intent of getting an advantage in dating is like PUA. My original post is meant to frame the scenario from the eyes of a PUA, like if they wanted to hit on a pretty girl, spent a lot of effort, only to find out she was actually ugly (yes, it's superficial, but they're superficial).

The idea that someone can look pretty, and actually be ugly is incoherent. If someone looks pretty, then they are pretty. If they take makeup off or whatever, and then they are ugly, then they are then ugly but it does not make them liars about their appearance back when the makeup was on. "Pretty," "ugly," "appearance" and similar words are used to determine how someone looks, not how someone might look in a some make-believe scenario in which they didn't do anything to alter their appearance.

[The Great Hippo]

Also don't assume that PUA is all about sex.

Can you point me to a seminar, a teacher, or a book that explains how PUA's central goal isn't getting more sex?

Finally there's really nothing deceptive about PUA, so we don't tell them?

If there's nothing deceptive going on here, what's the problem? Telling them you're using PUA techniques on them should be harmless, right? So go ahead and give it a try. See what happens.

I'm not saying you're part of an organization, I'm saying you're part of a culture, and that this culture involves conspiring against women by not including them in the discussion. Include them. See what happens. Worst case scenario? They reject you. Best case scenario? Lots and lots of sex between wholly consenting, wholly honest adults. So remind me--what's the problem again?

Is your next silly argument going to be about how PUA doesn't actually tell the girls the specific technique they are using against them when doing pickup? That'll be lol-worthy indeed.

I'd actually be pretty impressed if you could work that into your routine. "Hey, baby, I just finished reading the Game. Want to be my practice run?"

Why not give it a try?

[FireZs]

Ugh. Look. I'm sure you're being sarcastic here, but in case you aren't, no, Shivahn didn't defend those who use makeup to deceive.

Like, I can't believe you can't see the difference. Makeup is non-selective. You apply it to yourself. You can't choose to apply makeup to some people and not others, because it's STUCK ON YOUR FACE. Even if you don't want to affect a certain group of people, they will inevitably be able to see your face.

You CAN apply PUA tactics to only some people, particularly the ones you are interested in. The rest don't get this and to them you might seem like any other person.

So while you can never tell if someone wears makeup to deceive or not, PUA tactics always deceive.

You can absolutely choose to apply makeup to some people and not others. Wear makeup when in a dating situation (or in asia, a matchmaking situation), don't wear makeup otherwise.

Also, makeup always deceives as well. It's just a deception you're comfortable with, and most of the time it's very very minor deception. The extreme makeup I linked to is pretty major deception. The woman simply does not look like that, but people may very well think she does.

Some PUA tactics are simply what some people do naturally. It's only deceptive if they're faking it and it's not who they are. So just as you can't tell if someone is wearing makeup to deceive or not, you can't tell if someone is acting a certain way because they're really like that, or if they read it from a PUA manual.

I never said makeup in general is like PUA, nor did I even say extreme makeup like the ones I linked to is like PUA. I'm saying using extreme makeup like the ones I linked to with the intent of getting an advantage in dating is like PUA. My original post is meant to frame the scenario from the eyes of a PUA, like if they wanted to hit on a pretty girl, spent a lot of effort, only to find out she was actually ugly (yes, it's superficial, but they're superficial).

The idea that someone can look pretty, and actually be ugly is incoherent. If someone looks pretty, then they are pretty. If they take makeup off or whatever, and then they are ugly, then they are then ugly but it does not make them liars about their appearance back when the makeup was on. "Pretty," "ugly," "appearance" and similar words are used to determine how someone looks, not how someone might look in a some make-believe scenario in which they didn't do anything to alter their appearance.

So if someone is social, fun, and has a certain personality that attracts women, but it's not really them, they're just using tactics they learned off a PUA book, they actually are social/fun/attractive? If they can't keep it up, it doesn't make them liars about their personality back when they were using the PUA tactics?

[Nylonathatep]

Also don't assume that PUA is all about sex.

Can you point me to a seminar, a teacher, or a book that explains how PUA's central goal isn't getting more sex?

Neil Strauss: The Game? Like probably the most famous book in the Seduction Community and it made PUA infamous. Mystery imploded at the end of the book because the Mystery Method is all about building on something that isn't true. When reality hit, his world collapsed. As another poster put it poetically, it's about a boy reaching manhood and maturity. If anything it's about how we should stay true to ourselves and not be a faker.

You should at least give it a read.

Finally there's really nothing deceptive about PUA, so we don't tell them?

If there's nothing deceptive going on here, what's the problem? Telling them you're using PUA techniques on them should be harmless, right? So go ahead and give it a try. See what happens.

I'm not saying you're part of an organization, I'm saying you're part of a culture, and that this culture involves conspiring against women by not including them in the discussion. Include them. See what happens. Worst case scenario? They reject you. Best case scenario? Lots and lots of sex between wholly consenting, wholly honest adults. So remind me--what's the problem again?

I think I actually "trigger your trap card"! Well done!

I don't need to prove anything and this whole telling this is ridiculous beyond anything imaginable. No we do not need to stick a sign that we are PUA on our forehead. Culture, organization, same thing. How about next time I start listing my age, race, sex, date of birth, occupation, blood type, and family status nicely on the front of my shirt, because hey... I can be an older guy cradle robbing, I could be married and already have kids, or I could have AIDS or any STD... now why don't normal people do that just to prove they aren't being deceptive?

Besides I don't see where you are going on with this? Not describing the fact that we got tips from PUA? So what? Guys can get tips on girls from their friends too... do we need to go "citation needed" on everything when a guy approach a girl? Or are you assuming the fact that women don't know if they are being seduced?

Spoiler:

They do.

Maybe it's time for you to answer some questions for me 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.)

You know what? Don't even bother. The Proof is in the pudding. You guys just want to be right and win an internet argument instead of actually caring about the argument. In that case consider yourselves the winner of internets. Good night.

[FireZs]

I'm saying using extreme makeup like the ones I linked to with the intent of getting an advantage in dating is like PUA.

Oh. Okay. So yeah, you're wrong about this, for the reasons I and others already explained. In the one very specific example you cited with tons of mitigating circumstances, you might not be wrong, but the truth is I don't know enough to say.

Can we move on?

Actually, no. This bothers me the more I think about it. I originally only brought this up to show pro-PUA people how wrong they are, yet it's anti-PUA people who are on my back about it the most (or at all). You will insist that if some women like being subject to PUA tactics, people who use PUA are obligated to disclose that they're engaging in PUA tactics. Saying "I'm not nearly as pretty as I look" is not nearly the same level of disclosure when the makeup is that extreme. It'd be like saying "I'm normally not that social." Quite the understatement. If you looked THAT different with makeup on, shouldn't you be obligated to show a picture of what you look like without it to whoever you're dating, on the first date?

[The Great Hippo]

So if someone is social, fun, and has a certain personality that attracts women, but it's not really them, they're just using tactics they learned off a PUA book, they actually are social/fun/attractive? If they can't keep it up, it doesn't make them liars about their personality back when they were using the PUA tactics?

Of course not. If you're fun, social, and attractive, you're fun, social, and attractive. The problem with PUA isn't that it teaches people how to be these things under certain circumstances. Folkhero's point holds.

I think I actually "trigger your trap card"! Well done!

I don't need to prove anything and this whole telling this is ridiculous beyond anything imaginable. No we do not need to stick a sign that we are PUA on our forehead. Culture, organization, same thing. How about next time I start listing my age, race, sex, date of birth, occupation, blood type, and family status nicely on the front of my shirt, because hey... I can be an older guy cradle robbing, I could be married and already have kids, or I could have AIDS or any STD... now why don't normal people do that just to prove they aren't being deceptive?

Besides I don't see where you are going on with this? Not describing the fact that we got tips from PUA? So what? Guys can get tips on girls from their friends too... do we need to go "citation needed" on everything when a guy approach a girl? Or are you assuming the fact that women don't know if they are being seduced?

All I'm saying is that you might try telling the women you're interacting with that you learned these techniques from PUA. That's all. By doing so, you'll be better equipped to understand how women feel about PUA.

That's all. That's it. Nothing more. Occasionally include women in the discussion by telling them what you're doing.

The fact that you're jumping through hoop after hoop--justification after justification--hollow reasoning after hollow reasoning--so you don't have to tell women what you're doing--again, I think this is incredibly telling. Basically, I'm saying you're a douchefuck who doesn't give a shit what women think, and my evidence is that you won't tell the women you're using PUA techniques on just what you're up to. Your response is a whiny, petulant "But Hippo, I shouldn't have to!"

Grow the fuck up.

[FireZs]

So if someone is social, fun, and has a certain personality that attracts women, but it's not really them, they're just using tactics they learned off a PUA book, they actually are social/fun/attractive? If they can't keep it up, it doesn't make them liars about their personality back when they were using the PUA tactics?

Of course not. If you're fun, social, and attractive, you're fun, social, and attractive. The problem with PUA isn't that it teaches people how to be these things under certain circumstances. Folkhero's point holds

Ok, well you're more supportive of PUA than I am then. I think if you're displaying a personality you don't actually have, that's deceptive, and if you stop displaying that personality later on (since it's not really your personality), then you were lying, misrepresenting your personality before.

[The Great Hippo]

Ok, well you're more supportive of PUA than I am then. I think if you're displaying a personality you don't actually have, that's deceptive, and if you stop displaying that personality later on (since it's not really your personality), then you were lying, misrepresenting your personality before.

The fuck? You are what you are. Your behavior is your personality. There is not some super-secret magical chrysalis hidden deep beneath your outward behavior that represents your true, untainted self.

If you behave a certain way in front of people and a separate way in private, yeah, that can be deceptive, sure. Is that what PUA is teaching you? Act one way in public, another way in private? Or is it teaching you to change your personality wholesale? The former would be a very stupid fucking thing to teach.

[Belial]

Also, makeup always deceives as well.

In the same sense clothes do.

"You mean to tell me you're NOT blue and ruffled? Deal's off!"

[FireZs]

Ok, well you're more supportive of PUA than I am then. I think if you're displaying a personality you don't actually have, that's deceptive, and if you stop displaying that personality later on (since it's not really your personality), then you were lying, misrepresenting your personality before.

The fuck? You are what you are. Your behavior is your personality. There is not some super-secret magical chrysalis hidden deep beneath your outward behavior that represents your true, untainted self.

If you behave a certain way in front of people and a separate way in private, yeah, that can be deceptive, sure. Is that what PUA is teaching you? Act one way in public, another way in private? Or is it teaching you to change your personality wholesale? The former would be a very stupid fucking thing to teach.

Uh, if you behave a certain way to get a girl to sleep with you because that's all you cared about, then a separate way after you've slept with her because you got what you want already, that's not deceptive? Seriously, are you actually against PUA? Cause you're borderline making the "self-improvement" "it actually changed my personality" defense they've been making.

Also, makeup always deceives as well.

In the same sense clothes do.

"You mean to tell me you're NOT blue and ruffled? Deal's off!"

Very very mildly. Like most makeup. But if there's clothes, like a bodysuit or something, that can turn me into the spitting image of ryan gosling, I should have to disclose that I'm not actually ryan gosling on the first date, and show a picture of what I actually look like.

[The Great Hippo]

Uh, if you behave a certain way to get a girl to sleep with you because that's all you cared about, then a separate way after you've slept with her because you got what you want already, that's not deceptive? Seriously, are you actually against PUA? Cause you're borderline making the "self-improvement" "it actually changed my personality" defense they've been making.

Let's play a new game: I'll start answering your questions when you start reading my posts.

[FireZs]

Uh, if you behave a certain way to get a girl to sleep with you because that's all you cared about, then a separate way after you've slept with her because you got what you want already, that's not deceptive? Seriously, are you actually against PUA? Cause you're borderline making the "self-improvement" "it actually changed my personality" defense they've been making.

Let's play a new game: I'll start answering your questions when you start reading my posts.

Heh, ok. Let's pretend that I misunderstood you. Let you save some face.

[Spill Wooner]

For anyone who would like to read something about the intricacies of PUA from a knowledgeable source with an open mind and also a strong feminist sense, Clarisse Thorne has just written a book about it. For the wary, she really does do her very best to provide a fair and balanced perspective in all her blogging on the subject, so I have no reason to believe her book will be any different.

It just struck me. Graphite Girl posted a link to someone who spent time in the trenches trying to figure what the fuck was up, and what good could be gleaned from the community. This got all of one response. I want to make that two.

[Weeks]

You can absolutely choose to apply makeup to some people and not others. Wear makeup when in a dating situation (or in asia, a matchmaking situation), don't wear makeup otherwise.

Also, makeup always deceives as well. It's just a deception you're comfortable with, and most of the time it's very very minor deception. The extreme makeup I linked to is pretty major deception. The woman simply does not look like that, but people may very well think she does.

Some PUA tactics are simply what some people do naturally. It's only deceptive if they're faking it and it's not who they are. So just as you can't tell if someone is wearing makeup to deceive or not, you can't tell if someone is acting a certain way because they're really like that, or if they read it from a PUA manual.

We might be confusing our terminology here. When I said PUA tactics always deceive, I meant PUA tactics are always employed to deceive someone, while makeup might not be used to deceive someone.

Perhaps there are some PUA tactics that don't intend to deceive, but I don't know about that. If you were naturally good at getting someone to have sex with you, it's still a plan to have sex with someone and some manipulation is involved. This is true of non-PUAs. On the other hand, some people wear makeup not to get someone to have sex with them. There can be no expectation of sex whatsoever, and therefore no manipulation.

[Princess Marzipan]

I'm not saying you're part of an organization, I'm saying you're part of a culture, and that this culture involves conspiring against women by not including them in the discussion. Include them. See what happens. Worst case scenario? They reject you. Best case scenario? Lots and lots of sex between wholly consenting, wholly honest adults. So remind me--what's the problem again?

Yeah, right? I mean, I thought only scrubs fixated on girls that didn't want them.

[FireZs]

We might be confusing our terminology here. When I said PUA tactics always deceive, I meant PUA tactics are always employed to deceive someone, while makeup might not be used to deceive someone.

Perhaps there are some PUA tactics that don't intend to deceive, but I don't know about that. If you were naturally good at getting someone to have sex with you, it's still a plan to have sex with someone and some manipulation is involved. This is true of non-PUAs. On the other hand, some people wear makeup not to get someone to have sex with them. There can be no expectation of sex whatsoever, and therefore no manipulation.

We might be. As was mentioned many times before, the key is intent. Two actions that outwardly look identical could have vastly different intents. If you're naturally good at getting someone to have sex with you, you may not even realize that what you're doing is going to lead to sex. An example that came up earlier is that if a woman seems uninterested in you, you should move on and talk to another woman. The normal person is doing that, because, well, that's the decent thing to do, since the woman's not interested. The PUA is doing that because he wants to make the first woman jealous. Same action, looks identical from the outside, but completely different intents. Same thing with the extreme makeup I talked about. One woman could be doing it just to look pretty and doesn't date at all, while another woman could be using it with the intent to deceive whoever she'll be dating (and I gave an example of at least one context where something like this actually happens). Looks the same from the outside, but the intent is very different.

[The Great Hippo]

It just struck me. Graphite Girl posted a link to someone who spent time in the trenches trying to figure what the fuck was up, and what good could be gleaned from the community. This got all of one response. I want to make that two.

I'm going to give the book a look, probably; 3$ isn't a terrible amount, and it might give me a more balanced understanding of what's going on. I'm just trying to justify it when my expenditures are so tightly controlled, but hell--that's the price of two candybars. I can go without two candybars. Maybe.

Heh, ok. Let's pretend that I misunderstood you. Let you save some face.

Grow up.

[Weeks]

We might be confusing our terminology here. When I said PUA tactics always deceive, I meant PUA tactics are always employed to deceive someone, while makeup might not be used to deceive someone.

Perhaps there are some PUA tactics that don't intend to deceive, but I don't know about that. If you were naturally good at getting someone to have sex with you, it's still a plan to have sex with someone and some manipulation is involved. This is true of non-PUAs. On the other hand, some people wear makeup not to get someone to have sex with them. There can be no expectation of sex whatsoever, and therefore no manipulation.

If you're naturally good at getting someone to have sex with you, you may not even realize that what you're doing is going to lead to sex.

But if you're trying to get sex, that doesn't matter. There is some manipulation involved. Whereas if you're wearing makeup, manipulation may not be involved at all.

The actions being compared are "planning to have sex with a stranger" and "wearing makeup". Not "being attractive" and "wearing makeup".

I can go without two candybars. Maybe.

Grow up.

Pot meet kettle! I'm on to you TGH

[FireZs]

Heh, ok. Let's pretend that I misunderstood you. Let you save some face.

Grow up.

Just make your argument. "Grow up" is pretty fresh coming from someone who has to resort to "you didn't read my post!" If I did misread something just say what it is. I've always given people that courtesy at least.

[The Great Hippo]

But if you're trying to get sex, that doesn't matter. There is some manipulation involved. Whereas if you're wearing makeup, manipulation may not be involved at all.

The actions being compared are "planning to have sex with a stranger" and "wearing makeup". Not "being attractive" and "wearing makeup".

Wearing makeup isn't a plan, or a technique, or even an interaction; it's something you do for a lot of different reasons. It's part of the social game, and it involves a lot of varying pressures--and almost none of these pressures involve coercing people into decisions they might later come to regret.

Reverse it. Re-imagine PUA not as an organization that attempts to pick up women via the correct lines or whatever; re-imagine them as a make-up club for men. They get together and talk about the best sort of make-up to wear to make themselves feel rough and tough. Shaving tips for just the right amount of stubble; the right amount of foundation to give their jaw that extra umph. Teeth-whitening products. How to make their hair look great, but simultaneously like they don't care that it looks great. Guy stuff.

Nothing about peacocking, or negging, or any of this manipulative stuff. Just guys talking to guys about how to look like a super-hot guy.

Does this sound like a conspiracy against women? Or does it sound like a bunch of guys figuring out how to make themselves look hotter for whatever reason? For me, that's the distinction.

[FireZs]

But if you're trying to get sex, that doesn't matter. There is some manipulation involved. Whereas if you're wearing makeup, manipulation may not be involved at all.

The actions being compared are "planning to have sex with a stranger" and "wearing makeup". Not "being attractive" and "wearing makeup".

But a natural may not even be trying to get sex. He's just naturally this way. If his intent isn't to have sex with every woman he talks to, but he does talk to women a lot, and the way he acts results in women having sex with him, must he be manipulative? And even if he were trying to get sex, is there something wrong with that if the women he talks to are receptive? Must all women be manipulated to have sex with a stranger?

Whereas what you're describing actually fits makeup more. If you're wearing makeup, the intent to deceive may not be there, but even with normal makeup, there's still a very very slight amount of deception. If you take it to the extreme like in the examples I gave, and do it with the intent to deceive in dating, I don't think that's right.

[Weeks]

But if you're trying to get sex, that doesn't matter. There is some manipulation involved. Whereas if you're wearing makeup, manipulation may not be involved at all.

The actions being compared are "planning to have sex with a stranger" and "wearing makeup". Not "being attractive" and "wearing makeup".

But a natural may not even be trying to get sex. He's just naturally this way. If his intent isn't to have sex with every woman he talks to, but he does talk to women a lot, and the way he acts results in women having sex with him, must he be manipulative?

No, and that is not what is being discussed.

And even if he were trying to get sex, is there something wrong with that if the women he talks to are receptive? Must all women be manipulated to have sex with a stranger?

I don't know about "wrong", but the answer to the second question is obviously no.

Whereas what you're describing actually fits makeup more. If you're wearing makeup, the intent to deceive may not be there, but even with normal makeup, there's still a very very slight amount of deception. If you take it to the extreme like in the examples I gave, and do it with the intent to deceive in dating, I don't think that's right.

You can think that, but don't you also think that that extreme is, well, extreme? It's a very specific case that doesn't seem to come up often enough to make a statistical difference. And if it did, it still doesn't make makeup objectionable in the way PUA is, because, again, most people don't wear makeup in order to have sex.

It's as Belial said: you don't object to people wearing good clothes, right? Because I sure as hell don't.

[FireZs]

Wearing makeup isn't a plan, or a technique, or even an interaction; it's something you do for a lot of different reasons. It's part of the social game, and it involves a lot of varying pressures--and almost none of these pressures involve coercing people into decisions they might later come to regret.

Reverse it. Re-imagine PUA not as an organization that attempts to pick up women via the correct lines or whatever; re-imagine them as a make-up club for men. They get together and talk about the best sort of make-up to wear to make themselves feel rough and tough. Shaving tips for just the right amount of stubble; the right amount of foundation to give their jaw that extra umph. Teeth-whitening products. How to make their hair look great, but simultaneously like they don't care that it looks great. Guy stuff.

Nothing about peacocking, or negging, or any of this manipulative stuff. Just guys talking to guys about how to look like a super-hot guy.

Does this sound like a conspiracy against women? Or does it sound like a bunch of guys figuring out how to make themselves look hotter for whatever reason? For me, that's the distinction.

Even if you were right that the equivalent of the misogyny in the PUA community is not there in extreme makeup, it still doesn't mean that extreme makeup isn't deceptive, and can't be used to misrepresent in dating. As I mentioned, it has been used for purposes along those lines in at least one context.

But maybe you can answer the question I posed earlier then. If a woman uses the extreme makeup methods I linked earlier and goes on a first date, should she not show her date a picture of what she looks like without it?

You can think that, but don't you also think that that extreme is, well, extreme? It's a very specific case that doesn't seem to come up often enough to make a statistical difference. And if it did, it still doesn't make makeup objectionable in the way PUA is, because, again, most people don't wear makeup in order to have sex.

It's as Belial said: you don't object to people wearing good clothes, right? Because I sure as hell don't.

PUA is also a pretty specific case that doesn't really come up often enough to make a statistical difference. I know it seems like PUA is everywhere, but the world is not xkcd, and it's not like there's an epidemic of guys who go for this stuff. And while it's true that most people don't wear makeup solely to fool their date, most people also don't talk solely to get laid. It's a matter of degree and intent.

I don't object to good clothes in the same way I don't object to good makeup. But as I also said in my reply to Belial, if they made clothes, like a bodysuit, that makes me look exactly like ryan gosling, I think you'd agree that I'd need to disclose that fact on any dates I go on.

[Weeks]

May I just say that deceiving is not the same as being deceived.

PUA is a pretty specific case that doesn't really come up often enough to make a statistical difference. I know it seems like PUA is everywhere, but the world is not xkcd, and it's not like there's an epidemic of guys who go for this stuff. And while it's true that most people don't wear makeup solely to fool their date, most people don't talk solely to get laid. It's a matter of degree and intent.

Again. It's not about TALKING. It's about USING PUA TACTICS. It's not about PUA within approaching people being unlikely, it's about manipulation within PUA being very very likely.

The original comparison made a while ago, I believe, was "makeup" = "PUA tactics". You are using "extreme makeup" = "makeup", which is not true. "Extreme makeup" = "PUA tactics" is also not true, but it might be somewhat analogous.

I wouldn't ask you to show me a picture of yourself without Ryan Gosling clothes. Turns out I don't date exclusively with people who look like Ryan Gosling.

[xkcdfan]

This is STILL GOING? Oh my god. PUAs are a bunch of bottom feeding scum suckers, end of story.

[Weeks]

I thought you quit?

Oh wait, it was the other XKCD Fan. Heh.

[FireZs]

May I just say that deceiving is not the same as being deceived.

PUA is a pretty specific case that doesn't really come up often enough to make a statistical difference. I know it seems like PUA is everywhere, but the world is not xkcd, and it's not like there's an epidemic of guys who go for this stuff. And while it's true that most people don't wear makeup solely to fool their date, most people don't talk solely to get laid. It's a matter of degree and intent.

Again. It's not about TALKING. It's about USING PUA TACTICS. It's not about PUA within approaching people being unlikely, it's about manipulation within PUA being very very likely.

The original comparison made a while ago, I believe, was "makeup" = "PUA tactics". You are using "extreme makeup" = "makeup", which is not true. "Extreme makeup" = "PUA tactics" is also not true, but it might be somewhat analogous.

I wouldn't ask you to show me a picture of yourself without Ryan Gosling clothes. Turns out I don't date exclusively with people who look like Ryan Gosling.

I never said all makeup is like PUA tactics. Extreme makeup is an extreme form of makeup that is much more likely to be misleading and can be used to mislead and deceive. It is not the same thing as regular makeup. Extreme makeup is not equal to PUA tactics, but extreme makeup with the intent to gain an advantage in dating is analgous. I think we actually mostly agree here.

You may not date ryan gosling lookalikes, but you also don't date PUAs. For the women who do, is it not important to inform them of what's going on?