1027: "Pickup Artist"

[xkcdfan]

I thought you quit?

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

Yeah no that asshole jacked my username and I want to kick him in his misogynistic face.

[Weeks]

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?

No. People can choose to date PUAs. People can also choose to blow all their money on lottery tickets.

[FireZs]

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?

No. People can choose to date PUAs. People can also choose to blow all their money on lottery tickets.

People can choose to date PUAs if they're informed that the person they're dating is a PUA. I think you've seen in this thread just how resistant pro-PUA people are to that idea.

[Weeks]

Yep.

Hey, we agree! That's nice.

[folkhero]

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?

Do you show your dates pictures of what you would look like if you hadn't shaved/groomed/bathed/protected yourself from the elements/worked out/eaten a nutritious diet in several months?

[Pfhorrest]

On the subject of involving women in the "PUA" brainstorming (i.e. ask women how to approach them), I want to emphasize again my earlier anecdote about how this is a phenomenally good idea, not just because the resulting methods you settle on will be more ethical (from considering the other people affected by your actions in your choice of actions), but because they will be much more effective.

Of course, the advice you get will have to be taken with a grain of salt, because there are some women out there playing their own social manipulation games who will give selfish "advice" that would be to their sole benefit if followed, just as there are lots of men out there who would love to advise women to open conversation by offering a blow job or something.

But you ask the honest, introspective women, and I will bet you will probably hear a common theme: That women are not strange alien beings you need to decipher. Really, they are people just like you with pretty much the same mental processes and motivations, mostly differing only because of social conditioning and expectations. So neither put them on pedestals nor treat them like cattle. Think of them just like anyone else.

As I've mentioned before, I grew up with the mindset, imparted from popular media, that men and women were "from different planets": that women were interested in romance and emotions and had absolutely no interest in sex whatsoever and would prefer men to stop bothering them for it; and that men were interested in physical sex and had no interest in romance and with women would stop bothering them with it. This presented very obvious (in retrospect) impediments to "picking up" women, until one let slip the big secret: that women aren't so different than men, that women are interested in sex too, and that other men (not just me) were just as emotional as women.

Just keeping this in mind made approaching women much, much easier, and much more "effective", because then it's a cooperative process of finding someone to share a mutually enjoyable activity with, and not an antagonistic process of convincing someone to go along with an activity only you initially wanted to do. And surprise surprise, when you're working with someone instead of against them, much more progress is made.

Another group probably worth asking for advice are people who are naturally comfortable approaching people they are sexually interested in, and I'm willing to bet a common theme you hear from their advice would be: Sex is not that big a deal. I mean, it is, it's really fun and it can have serious consequences, but it is not the be all end all point of all existence. You can do without it. Worry about more important things first. PUA advice already says not to care about success with any particular woman, but that's missing the point: don't care about sex so much, period.

Internalizing this is probably a lot harder than just being told it, and I'm not sure how to instill it in people (I only got it after years of experience), but if you can somehow come to accept it then, in my experience, it makes approaching people you're sexually interested in much easier, because you can "take it or leave it", and that kind of aloofness both makes you more attractive (pressure scares people away) and so makes your approaches more "effective" again, and also makes the kind of connections you find more worthwhile (people who're actually, honestly interested in you make more enjoyable partners, surprise!).

So: Treat women as people, and don't be all about sex. Two most successful pickup tips I ever learned. And all the opponents to seduction techniques will have no objection to you using them, because neither are anything especially seductive. You're not trying to manipulate people into having sex with you. You're realizing that they don't need manipulating, that they are interested in sex too, and providing them an opportunity for it on respectful, comfortable terms.

Think of it this way: would you rather buy something from a shop that spams you to come in, and then has high-pressure salespeople hovering over you the entire time you're in the store; or the shop with tasteful informative advertisements and friendly staff who help you find what you need and otherwise leave you alone? You are the "shop"; sex is what you're "selling"; which business model do you think will do better?

The last group I'd really advise people to look to for "pickup" tips (again) is the gay and lesbian community. Yeah, I know, good luck there with the likely high percentage of homophobes in the misogynistic "seduction community". But men approaching men, or women approaching women, know for certain that the other party is not a mysterious alien being in need of complex codified and encrypted signalling. Straight guys: go to a lesbian bar and watch girls pick up other girls. Then go to an ordinary bar and try that approach with straight women. I'll bet you you will not only have better luck, but that the women will be far less put off too.

[netcrusher88]

ALRIGHT LISTEN EVERYBODY SHUT UP

This dude right here is a pick-up artiste.

[jpk]

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

Because of course those are the two types of people in the world....

(There's still about a bazillion posts that I haven't read, so this has probably been addressed. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I'm not really thinking that I'm going to want to track back to this comment after I've read through all the bazillion to find out. )

[jpk]

Lot's of interesting stuff.

Is this the gender switched version?
---
(Unattractive woman approaches alpha male)

Male: "Ooh, are you wearing make-up? (...)
You look like you are going to spend your life trying one beauty treatment after another (...).
Nothing will ever change. (...) It's what you are."
---

Why does the "gender-switched" version focus on her appearance? The beauty of her smackdown is that it goes to the core of the "pickup artist's" being, and reveals that there's no there there. Your "reversal" suggests that the only thing important for a woman is looking pretty so men will want to practice their pickup artistry on her.

[jpk]

Then what is the whole point of social skills, then?

The PUA-community's (genuine or feigned) inability to understand the difference between relating to people and manipulating or handling them never ceases to make me feel like I'm surrounded by sociopaths.

One of the key tenets of the PUA community is that attraction is supposed to come before rapport. In other words, if you relate with someone before you show yourself to be a confident, independent, healthy, socially adept individual, then you're going to end up in the friend zone.

Um... just out of curiosity...

what's wrong with having friends?

[Magnanimous]

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.

I just finished the first chapter, and it's very well done. A semi-neutral approach to PUA is definitely something we could use here.

ALRIGHT LISTEN EVERYBODY SHUT UP

This dude right here is a pick-up artiste.

That was beautiful.

[Felstaff]

what's wrong with having friends?

Nothing, but that wasn't about having friends, it was about being 'friend-zoned', where the relationship one has with one's friend is imbalanced. i.e. Friend X feels platonic love for friend Y, but Y feels Eros love for X.

[jpk]

what's wrong with having friends?

Nothing, but that wasn't about having friends, it was about being 'friend-zoned', where the relationship one has with one's friend is imbalanced. i.e. Friend X feels platonic love for friend Y, but Y feels Eros love for X.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

Still leaves the question hanging... Y isn't getting into X's knickers in any case, so what's wrong with making a friend?

[J Thomas]

Something else I've been thinking about that bugs me, and I haven't been able to put into words until recently: The whole idea of a bunch of people attending a class/seminar on what to say to women in order to impress them and have sex with them.

That bothers me too. I've read that Japan as a nation is is completely over-the-top about taking formal lessons about everything. The USA is getting that way. We get schoolkids who take long courses of study specifically about getting good results on the SAT. It's ridiculous.

One of the key components of this is the question I asked way back--if the woman you're trying to 'pick up' was aware that you're a PUA, how would that make her feel?

When I was living in San Francisco my girlfriend's brother came to visit from Tennessee. He started trying to pick up women. But everywhere he went, SF women wanted nothing whatsoever to do with him. The obvious reason was that he had a thick southern accent, and he sounded like a hick. That was no problem at all in Tennessee, but in SF it meant he was not the least bit cool.

Suppose he had learned to suppress his accent. Then maybe he could get women to talk to him. At that point should he immediately tell them, "You ought to know that I'm from Tennessee and I'm really kind of a redneck"? If they like him without knowing that, they might like him. If he tells them something that would immediately prejudice them against him, they would not.

To my untrained eye? A conspiracy against women.

I dunno. To my way of thinking, if you're thinking about having sex with somebody -- particularly for a one-night-stand -- the most important piece of info both participants need to tell each other is how many people they've had sex with. The first rule for STDs is: Don't have sex with people who are more promiscuous than you are.

So if you approach a woman for sex, you really ought to tell her truthfully how many people you've had protected sex with, and how many people you've had unprotected sex with.

And she should tell you the same thing.

This is vitally more important than whether you've put effort into looking attractive. Does anybody do it? Not that I've heard. Women have sometimes told me about that when they were thinking about starting relationships with me, though.

I knew a woman who had lots of one-night-stands and short relationships, who got upset that a front tooth darkened. She didn't have the money to get it capped, and she thought that would make it very hard for her to get sex. I pointed out that it wouldn't matter much to men who wanted something long-term. If he cared about her, he'd love her despite the tooth and he might pay to get it fixed. So, say she did get her tooth capped -- did she owe it to somebody she was picking up for the night to tell him about the tooth? I don't think so. For that sort of situation it's pretty much WYSIWYG.

[VectorZero]

The first rule for STDs is: Don't have sex with people who are more promiscuous than you are.

Er, no. Very no. How about "use protection with every casual sex partner"?

[Weeks]

The first rule for STDs is: Don't have sex with people who are more promiscuous than you are.

No, the first rule for STDs is use protection, silly.

[doogly]

Rule 2: Don't have sex with people who got Rule 1 incorrect.

[J Thomas]

The first rule for STDs is: Don't have sex with people who are more promiscuous than you are.

Er, no. Very no. How about "use protection with every casual sex partner"?

"Protection" does not completely work. It's worth using, and it is not completely effective.

Still, I like your idea for a first rule. Mine should probably be a second rule, and it sounded good as a first rule, stylisticly. I don't think anybody here would think of it as the advice they will use from now on when they ignore your first rule.

[Nylonathatep]

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.

Didn't I already gave you an example of why ppl just don't tell people they are using PUA techniques on my pervious post? Like how a normal guy won't go up to a girl and disclose every bits of information about himself when meeting anyone in general? Are you seriously that dense?

There's only been one counter-argument to what you said and this is the response that I keep posting because it's not "justification after justification" but rather me hammering the same point again and again because you refuse to adknowledge it:

K, let's try this situation: You are introduced by a friend to someone... do you automatically goes and say that you are a Christian, Republican supporter, and that you are an active enviromentalist just because you fear that someone might be offended because he/she oppose your views? Ofcourse not!!! Then why do you insist on place such a stripulation against people that maybe have just read up on one or two things in the PUA forum?

In other words... you refuse to accept that normal people don't do this. Do you do this? No? why don't you?

What I'm telling you is this: PUA don't do this not because they are trying to hide, but because it don't conform to social norms...

Your whole argument (If I follow, and correct me if I'm wrong) is this: PUA don't disclose their technique when they pick up girls... therefore they are being deceptive, since they are being deceptive, they are douchbags.

Consider this: Normal people that never have heard of PUA actually do read and respond to subtle body languague, tone of voice, etc. In fact we all do at a subconscious level. Every day we are bombarded with advertising, produce placement, etc. If you think that everything you see is what it is, then you holds a very naive view of the world.

I still fail to see how this has to do with actually "care about what women thinks", aka you are the one who has a hollow argument. You have a very weird concept on 'caring' about women and that they are somehow being victimized because of some social subtlity. They aren't. Stop White Knighting! They know at some point that a guy is interested and not completely social inepted like some people here.

At this point I'll say that it's pratically impossible to change someone's mind by posing argument with them. Instead of trying to find what's wrong with people's post and then defend your argument and your bruised ego; how about cooling your head and rereading what they have to say so you can maybe open your mind and be open to their ideas? You tried too hard to prove yourself right time and time again. It's incredibly telling.


"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - Scott Fitzgerald

[VectorZero]

The first rule for STDs is: Don't have sex with people who are more promiscuous than you are.

Er, no. Very no. How about "use protection with every casual sex partner"?

"Protection" does not completely work. It's worth using, and it is not completely effective.

Still, I like your idea for a first rule. Mine should probably be a second rule, and it sounded good as a first rule, stylisticly. I don't think anybody here would think of it as the advice they will use from now on when they ignore your first rule.

1) if everyone only had sex with less promiscuous partners, no one would ever get laid
2) I'm extrapolating, but "not promiscuous enough to be likely to have an STD" is not a safe metric for STD risk for you
3) your rule shows a considerable disregard for the well being of your partner: by your own rules, they shouldn't have sex with you since you're more promiscuous. Especially since, for instance, you may carry chlamydia but be asymptomatic, but transmitting the bacteria puts your partner at risk of infertility

[FireZs]

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?

Do you show your dates pictures of what you would look like if you hadn't shaved/groomed/bathed/protected yourself from the elements/worked out/eaten a nutritious diet in several months?

Do you show your dates what you're like when you're off your medication if you're a schizophrenic?

[Marlayna]

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!

I'm perfectly fine with peple who live in their basements and don't socialise. I'd pick one of those people over someone who tries to manipulate me any day (that is, as long as I'm fortunate enough to realise in time that he's trying to manipulate me).

Honest ignorance of societal norms may come across as creepy, but it really isn't. Willful ignorance is. If someone honestly tries to be considerate of my emotions but misinterprets them because of inexperience, I can simply explain to him what he's doing wrong ("wrong" in the sense that it has a bad effect on me, not in the sense that it hurts his chances with me) and he'll just apologise and correct his behaviour. By contrast, if someone doesn't want to understand, then there's nothing I can do besides try to stay away from him.

[purpleshoes]

1) if everyone only had sex with less promiscuous partners, no one would ever get laid

I'm imagining a vigorous game of wedding-night chicken. "No, you take off your pants!" "No, you!" "Okay, I'm taking off my pants." "That makes you the promiscuous one! Now we can't have sex or you'll give me the clap!"

The degree to which this is not how disease transmission works is almost beside the point.

[Nylonathatep]

I'm perfectly fine with peple who live in their basements and don't socialise. I'd pick one of those people over someone who tries to manipulate me any day (that is, as long as I'm fortunate enough to realise in time that he's trying to manipulate me).

Honest ignorance of societal norms may come across as creepy, but it really isn't. Willful ignorance is. If someone honestly tries to be considerate of my emotions but misinterprets them because of inexperience, I can simply explain to him what he's doing wrong ("wrong" in the sense that it has a bad effect on me, not in the sense that it hurts his chances with me) and he'll just apologise and correct his behaviour. By contrast, if someone doesn't want to understand, then there's nothing I can do besides try to stay away from him.

Didn't we just spend 30+ page on this thread discussing that not all PUA tactics is about manipulating girls into having sex with them? Did we not restate time and time again that we are indeed respectful to women and part of the social skils that we learn is the ability do so? And provided example that we do? Because I'm definately getting a sense of deja vu here.

I guess once this thread got locked and then unlocked, everyone suddenly have a case of amnesia.

[Red Hal]

Not amnesia, just trying not to fall for your jedi mind trickses; "These aren't the straw men you're looking for."

[Marlayna]

Didn't we just spend 30+ page on this thread discussing that not all PUA tactics is about manipulating girls into having sex with them?

Insofar as they are "tactics" and not "social skills", there is a degree of manipulation involved.

Did we not restate time and time again that we are indeed respectful to women and part of the social skils that we learn is the ability do so?

The ability to be respectful is something you had to learn?

[Weeks]

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?

Do you show your dates pictures of what you would look like if you hadn't shaved/groomed/bathed/protected yourself from the elements/worked out/eaten a nutritious diet in several months?

Do you show your dates what you're like when you're off your medication if you're a schizophrenic?

What the fuck is this shit? Where do you even go in your weird, twisted brain to draw this relationship and use it as an example?

[Bharrata]

The Buddhist teachings on the importance of non-attachment and impermanence would probably be healthier and more productive for aspiring PUAs, but that's just my experience and opinion on the topic writ large.

[FireZs]

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?

Do you show your dates pictures of what you would look like if you hadn't shaved/groomed/bathed/protected yourself from the elements/worked out/eaten a nutritious diet in several months?

Do you show your dates what you're like when you're off your medication if you're a schizophrenic?

What the fuck is this shit? Where do you even go in your weird, twisted brain to draw this relationship and use it as an example?

And yet you have no actual response to it. It just makes you lash out in anger for some reason.

Wearing extreme makeup to make you look fundamentally different from how you actually look in terms of eye shape/size and bone structure is an attempt to go above and beyond your natural endowments. That's not comparable to normal maintenance of your body, such as the showering/grooming/nutrition that folkhero refers to. It also includes normal makeup, which, as I said, is ok, and while technically deceptive, is very very minor.

My comment was to illustrate that PUA training is designed to make you go above and beyond your normal social skills. It wouldn't be comparable to taking medication for a mental condition (schizophrenia's probably not a good example, maybe something more like depression), because that would be for the maintenance of a normal life rather than trying to go above normal.

[Nylonathatep]

The ability to be respectful is something you had to learn?

I'll answer this with your own post.

Honest ignorance of societal norms may come across as creepy, but it really isn't. Willful ignorance is. If someone honestly tries to be considerate of my emotions but misinterprets them because of inexperience, I can simply explain to him what he's doing wrong ("wrong" in the sense that it has a bad effect on me, not in the sense that it hurts his chances with me) and he'll just apologise and correct his behaviour. By contrast, if someone doesn't want to understand, then there's nothing I can do besides try to stay away from him.

Or http://www.jerichotechnology.com/market ... -map-pt-2/

So yes, Male lags behind in developement in relations to Women. PUA, in a sense, Helps us understand women better and learn to interact with them. In other words, instead of actually having to go thru a trial and error in relationship (like that guy in your example), someone wrote a manual about it.

It's like the developement of Psychology in a way. Unethical stuff like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

gets run, with revealing data but questionable mean. In the end a standard is established. Yes, The current literature on PUA discredit the Mystery Method but recognize that it works. They moved on and establish more ethical methods and strageties.

Most anti-PUA people are still hung on to the stigma of how Mystery is presented in "The Game".

What the fuck is this shit? Where do you even go in your weird, twisted brain to draw this relationship and use it as an example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

And no, his example isn't that far fetched. There's many layers of personalities within us and we don't have to review every layer to have an honest relationship with a another person.

A few people in this thread has already stated their position regarding makeup. It's just a natrual progression to social interaction. Girls dress better, wear makeup, push-up bras; guys learing how to interact better with girls. People who don't accused of people who do as 'cheating' the system and 'manipulating the emotion of girls'. Like it or not, evolution goes on.

[WithinThisMind]

On the subject of involving women in the "PUA" brainstorming (i.e. ask women how to approach them), I want to emphasize again my earlier anecdote about how this is a phenomenally good idea, not just because the resulting methods you settle on will be more ethical (from considering the other people affected by your actions in your choice of actions), but because they will be much more effective.

They don't give a shit what the women think. The women aren't people to them, just points on a score card.

Women in this thread, me included, have demonstrated how PUA tactics make us uncomfortable and why, and we've been disregarded.

The woman in the scenario doesn't matter at all. She's just an object the PUA/moron is using to stoke his ego. PUA tactics aren't about women at all, they are about showing off to other men, just like guys who 'holla'. They are like a bunch of bantam roosters.

[FireZs]

A few people in this thread has already stated their position regarding makeup. It's just a natrual progression to social interaction. Girls dress better, wear makeup, push-up bras; guys learing how to interact better with girls. People who don't accused of people who do as 'cheating' the system and 'manipulating the emotion of girls'. Like it or not, evolution goes on.

As I said before, I don't think normal makeup is equivalent to PUA. My original question was: imagine if there was makeup that would make it so that a girl you normally would not be interested in would look so different that you would be interested. Wouldn't it bother you when you find out what she really looks like, and wouldn't it be just a little disturbing that there's a community that specializes in teaching women how to do this sort of thing, such that you now have to worry about if the girls you pursue actually look much much much uglier than what you thought they looked like? That there's a real world example of what I'm talking about is just a bonus, but this is kind of how people who don't support PUA see the concept, and the community.

[Bharrata]

I suppose extravagant make-up would be a problem if you were only interested in women based on physical characteristics.

Kind of a moot point in regards to interpersonal relationships...especially if a guy is using PUA techniques to only get one-night stands rather than a LTR.


If he's only looking for a one night stand what does it matter what she looks like without the make-up, and conversely if a woman is looking for a one-night stand what does it matter what a guy's personality is when he's not trying to get laid?

(For the record I don't have much respect for people who operate on such a superficial level, so please don't jump down my throat for posing the question.)

[FireZs]

I suppose extravagant make-up would be a problem if you were only interested in women based on physical characteristics.

Kind of a moot point in regards to interpersonal relationships...especially if a guy is using PUA techniques to only get one-night stands rather than a LTR.

If he's only looking for a one night stand what does it matter what she looks like without the make-up, and conversely if a woman is looking for a one-night stand what does it matter what a guy's personality is when he's not trying to get laid?

(For the record I don't have much respect for people who operate on such a superficial level, so please don't jump down my throat for posing the question.)

Looks shouldn't be everything, of course, but they are a part of who you are, and grossly misrepresenting any part of who you are should be a giant red flag when it comes to relationships.

As I've said in a previous post, I picked this example analogy to show how PUAs look to us specifically because I figured it would resonate with the mostly superficial attitudes of the PUA community when it comes to evaluating women.

[Nylonathatep]

As I said before, I don't think normal makeup is equivalent to PUA. My original question was: imagine if there was makeup that would make it so that a girl you normally would not be interested would look so different that you would be interested. Wouldn't it bother you when you find out what she really looks like, and wouldn't it be just a little disturbing that there's a community that specializes in teaching women how to do this sort of thing, such that you now have to worry about if the girls you pursue actually look like what they look like? That there's a real world example of what I'm talking about is just a bonus.

That's quite the hypothecial situation here! No wonder why you drew so much ire "You are saying that there girls out there that are deceptive!!! How could you??? Internet Police to the rescue!!!"

Nevermind the fact that you actually dared to equate a girl putting on makeup to some PUA being fake and manipulating girls to have sex with them! In reality, just like how not everyone in PUA have the skills to be Ross Jeffries, Neil Strauss, Owen Cook... most guys here can't execute everything, and most don't. You are giving us all too much credit here.

I can't speak on behalf of the PUA community, or every male in the universe. I would say that this already exist in one form or another in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mu_betPexI

To her defense: She's a Model and actually spent 3 years in Japan to learn how to do this. Looking good is part of her Job.

This is why the whole Mystery Method doesn't work: It's forcing you to be a person that you aren't. Sooner or later the real you would come out and the relationship would fail. That's also why PUA moved away from the Mystery Method. Does that answer your questions?

[dawolf]

On the subject of involving women in the "PUA" brainstorming (i.e. ask women how to approach them), I want to emphasize again my earlier anecdote about how this is a phenomenally good idea, not just because the resulting methods you settle on will be more ethical (from considering the other people affected by your actions in your choice of actions), but because they will be much more effective.

They don't give a shit what the women think. The women aren't people to them, just points on a score card.

Women in this thread, me included, have demonstrated how PUA tactics make us uncomfortable and why, and we've been disregarded.

The woman in the scenario doesn't matter at all. She's just an object the PUA/moron is using to stoke his ego. PUA tactics aren't about women at all, they are about showing off to other men, just like guys who 'holla'. They are like a bunch of bantam roosters.

Someone disagrees with you but - because you're a woman - they should pay extra attention? Somehow disagreeing with the opinions of women is worse than disagreeing with the opinions of men?


Look, I have multiple sisters, multiple female friends and I KNOW that women talk about how to be successful in the love game. There's even a book about it, which Randall has referenced in the past.


Look, simply put, there are some guys who are naturally successful with women. There are some that over time become successful with women. And there are those that are never successful with women. And lots of other groups of course.

That "success" can express in different ways, by being successful with a single women, or many. If someone becomes more adept at striking up a conversation with a member of the opposite sex, and then ends up marrying them, what's the harm? Similarly, why is it ok for someone to be a natural womaniser, but bad for someone to become better at womanising? Personally I'd break it down way more - I've known completely sleazy womanisers, and absolute gentlemen who just happen to stay as bachelors.

Just seems weird to focus on the learning, rather than the personalities.

[Red Hal]

No. Someone who is a woman is saying that they disagree with what you are saying about women. That's why you should pay more attention. There's more than the fair share of shit analogies in this thread but allow me to add another one; When a blue-spotted tiger walks up to you, don't go on telling everyone that blue-spotted tigers don't exist.

[Bharrata]

I suppose extravagant make-up would be a problem if you were only interested in women based on physical characteristics.

Kind of a moot point in regards to interpersonal relationships...especially if a guy is using PUA techniques to only get one-night stands rather than a LTR.

If he's only looking for a one night stand what does it matter what she looks like without the make-up, and conversely if a woman is looking for a one-night stand what does it matter what a guy's personality is when he's not trying to get laid?

(For the record I don't have much respect for people who operate on such a superficial level, so please don't jump down my throat for posing the question.)

Looks shouldn't be everything, of course, but they are a part of who you are, and grossly misrepresenting any part of who you are should be a giant red flag when it comes to relationships.

As I've said in a previous post, I picked this example analogy to show how PUAs look to us specifically because I figured it would resonate with the mostly superficial attitudes of the PUA community when it comes to evaluating women.

First, you'd have to define "grossly misrepresenting" who you are by using make-up...the altering of physical characteristics, especially in a widely known way that everyone accepts is done on a regular basis, seems much less disingenuous to me than significantly altering your behavior for a selfish benefit that may harm another person.

As in, wearing make-up may help a woman during a job interview because she's a little easier on the eyes (just like shaving before a job interview may help a man land the job) but that's entirely different than lying on your job resume to get the job. It does strike me that PUA techniques seem to be the same thing as low-level sales techniques wherein the customer is pressured to buy and convinced they need something that they had no intention of buying before the salesmen came across them.

Similarly, why is it ok for someone to be a natural womaniser, but bad for someone to become better at womanising?

Most people agree womanizing is an undesirable trait in a man, even if the women he womanizes help to enable and reinforce that behavior....so why would we want there to be more womanizers who weren't womanizing before?

[Shro]

Look, I have multiple sisters, multiple female friends and I KNOW that women talk about how to be successful in the love game. There's even a book about it, which Randall has referenced in the past.


Look, simply put, there are some guys who are naturally successful with women. There are some that over time become successful with women. And there are those that are never successful with women. And lots of other groups of course.

Yes, the book called "The Rules". And the comic referenced the idea (the beautiful dream) that we'd all be better off if they and the proponents of "The Game" all just paired off together, and the rest of us didn't have to deal with their crazy relationship drama.
http://xkcd.com/800/

[dawolf]

No. Someone who is a woman is saying that they disagree with what you are saying about women. That's why you should pay more attention. There's more than the fair share of shit analogies in this thread but allow me to add another one; When a blue-spotted tiger walks up to you, don't go on telling everyone that blue-spotted tigers don't exist.

No, someone who is a woman is saying that the disagree with what someone else has said. That's why you should pay more attention.

Read back through this thread to any of my posts. Say what about any of them you disagree with.