1027: "Pickup Artist"

[dawolf]

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?

I'm not a particular fan of womanisers (and I'm someone who is almost always in a relationship myself, and don't womanise). But strangely, womanisers haven't been criticised on this thread, PUA's have been. I can't be bothered to go back through 30+ pages, but quite a few times people have made the equivalency of natural=fine, learned=bad. I just don't get it.

[FireZs]

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!!!"

I hate to say it, but while they will angrily deny it, I get the sense that there's something to that from the responses I got over it. The original analogy wasn't even meant for them, and was actually meant to show you guys how you look to everyone else.

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.

That's actually one of the two links I provided in my original post.

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?

Somewhat. But I highly doubt that Mystery Method is completely discarded from the PUA community. Aren't there different schools of thought etc?

Even then, as I've also said earlier in the thread, part of what makes it disturbing is that you had to learn how to do it, which means that it doesn't reflect your true "mating fitness" (in the same way that physical attractiveness is a part of mating fitness), which is why there's a call for PUA people to clearly disclose that they learned this stuff in a structured fashion early in a relationship.

[Shro]

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.

No, someone who is a woman is saying that they disagree with what someone else has said ABOUT WOMEN. When a blue spotted tiger walks up to you and tells you that there are other blue spotted tigers, you don't automatically believe them, but if you could trust anyone about the existence of the blue spotted tiger, it would be a blue spotted tiger.

[dawolf]

Even then, as I've also said earlier in the thread, part of what makes it disturbing is that you had to learn how to do it, which means that it doesn't reflect your true "mating fitness" (in the same way that physical attractiveness is a part of mating fitness), which is why there's a call for PUA people to clearly disclose that they learned this stuff in a structured fashion early in a relationship.

...and here we go, straight away an example of "natural=fine, learned=bad".

EVERYTHING is either natural or learnt, ok? Natural is basically your underlying looks, and a part of your personality.

Most of your personality is learnt through life. Most of your looks are choices (clothing, hair style, weight).


There are very few absolute naturals, and the chances are they've been successful from an early age and frankly are a bit arrogant.

If I was setting up a sister with a guy, give me a nice guy who's had to learn how to chat to women over an arrogant git who's never known anything but success with the ladies, any day.

[Marlayna]

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.

There is a huge difference between "learning what people want" and "learning to respect what people want".

[FireZs]

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.

It looks like you didn't read my original post, where I define what I meant by "grossly misrepresenting". The examples, again, for reference:
http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/pictures ... akeup.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mu_betP ... re=related

Again, as I said, nothing wrong with normal makeup. This type of makeup is anything but normal, and is a much more extreme form of something done on a regular basis that isn't widely known. Just as PUA is an extreme form of something done on a regular basis (talking to women) that also isn't widely known. Even extreme makeup by itself wouldn't make it comparable to PUA, just as significantly altering behavior for its own sake is ok as well. It's when it's combined with the purpose of deception in a dating context that makes them comparable. The makeup side of things was hypothetical to illustrate a point to the pro-PUAs, but there does exist this sort of thing in real life, and people do use it for dating purposes.

[Bharrata]

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?

I'm not a particular fan of womanisers (and I'm someone who is almost always in a relationship myself, and don't womanise). But strangely, womanisers haven't been criticised on this thread, PUA's have been. I can't be bothered to go back through 30+ pages, but quite a few times people have made the equivalency of natural=fine, learned=bad. I just don't get it.

I was under the impression that PUA are more or less womanizers, and I'd have to say that learned womanizing is just as bad as natural (though that starts a nature v. nurture debate)...but then the question becomes, if PUA is wrong because it makes men lie about their true selves, would a natural womanizer who attempted to be less so be a liar as well and thus just as guilty of the same thing, but then of course in a more socially acceptable way?

><

Even then, as I've also said earlier in the thread, part of what makes it disturbing is that you had to learn how to do it, which means that it doesn't reflect your true "mating fitness" (in the same way that physical attractiveness is a part of mating fitness), which is why there's a call for PUA people to clearly disclose that they learned this stuff in a structured fashion early in a relationship.

When I work out and get in better shape am I altering my baseline initial mating fitness? I'm not saying learning PUA is a good thing, and I think most people criticizing it are trying to make the point, as am I, that there are much, much better ways of improving oneself to make themselves more attractive to potential mates.

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/

The alt-text dream about The Giving Tree and the Metamorphosis is waaaaay better imo

[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.

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.

You mean, apart from the bit I disagreed with in the bit you quoted? Perhaps I should have made it clearer by using "one is" instead of "you are", and "one" instead of "you", but I consider that to have been outmoded even in my youth.

[Jave D]

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?

You actually gave examples of cases where people don't disclose certain information. Examples like marital status (which is disclosed with a wedding ring), age, race, sex (which is disclosed by obviousness), occupation (which is disclosed usually in conversation), whether you have AIDS or STDs (which any sane and considerate person does disclose with someone he intends to sleep with), and blood type (which is just... not relevant). You didn't actually give examples of why people don't disclose this kind of information... probably because they actually usually do disclose it, and so they don't really support your argument.

If you're not ashamed that you're using PUA techniques why do you refrain from telling anyone you're using them?

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!!!

Politics and religion, when they come up in conversation, are not something I hide my opinions on. Why do you ask questions and then answer them as if they were rhetorical? They're not as rhetorical as you'd like to think. People are different, and yes, some people are *gasp* honest about what they think and feel and believe.

[Nylonathatep]

There is a huge difference between "learning what people want" and "learning to respect what people want".

Looks like You just changed the argument on me and did a little bait and switch there. So allow me restate my own position:

Guys need to learn how to socially interact with girls. (This includes how to sense their interest, build rapport, and learning to to get frustrate and just walk if they don't sense mutual interest.) If that isn't a display of respect... I don't know what is.

Cuz you know... only scrubs hang on. (Even Princess Quote me on this)

Somewhat. But I highly doubt that Mystery Method is completely discarded from the PUA community. Aren't there different schools of thought etc?

Even then, as I've also said earlier in the thread, part of what makes it disturbing is that you had to learn how to do it, which means that it doesn't reflect your true "mating fitness" (in the same way that physical attractiveness is a part of mating fitness), which is why there's a call for PUA people to clearly disclose that they learned this stuff in a structured fashion early in a relationship.

The Myster Method is the first iteration of PUA; the most current literature is Owen Cook's RSD method that stress inner confidence.

Marlayna here probably have the same though process as you did, and assume that we all have to reinvent the circle every time when it comes to social interaction. Anything that isn't experience is a shortcut. In this case civilization and science won't advance beyond the stone age because we'll need to reinvent every bit of knowledge in our lives.

Surprisingly, that whole "mating fitness" thing goes back to Ladder theory, where the alpha male gets the best girl in the social group. Yet there's people in this thread that disregard Ladder Theory. I'll say it's like a job interview at this point. Outright lying in a resume is bad and we can all agree on this; polishing your resume to show your strenghts and hide your weakness is normal and there's nothing unethical about it.

What people believe about PUA is that we are lying on the resume. The few tips that people post on PUA websites is just about polishing our resume, and doing stuff that actually makes our resume better.

If you're not ashamed that you're using PUA techniques why do you refrain from telling anyone you're using them?

You are just using a different way of asking the same question so here goes: If you are indeed married and hide your wedding band when you go pickup chicks, that's definately shady.

However, you do not go out to a scene with a sign sticking on your forehead stating you are single, clean, and not a psycho. What you are asking of us to do is an explicit thing, so that's why we don't do it.

Go wrap your head around that one.

[Marlayna]

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?

If you suspect that this fact might make a difference to a prospective partner, then you should mention it.

There is a huge difference between "learning what people want" and "learning to respect what people want".

Looks like You just changed the argument on me and did a little bait and switch there. So allow me restate my own position:

Guys need to learn how to socially interact with girls. (This includes how to sense their interest, build rapport, and learning to to get frustrate and just walk if they don't sense mutual interest.) If that isn't a display of respect... I don't know what is.

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

[Nylonathatep]

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

Like that guy here?

http://xkcd.com/513/

Or I could provide you with examples of how guys can get hung up on girls...

http://englishhistory.net/keats/poetry/ ... merci.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVNT4wvIGY

There's a whole lot more... but I guess it isn't creepy if it's poetic.


Everyone is actually A Frustrated Guy once (AFG), It's actually quite a huge part of our culture.

[Jave D]

Surprisingly, that whole "mating fitness" thing goes back to Ladder theory, where the alpha male gets the best girl in the social group. Yet there's people in this thread that disregard Ladder Theory.

I'd be more surprised that there are people in this thread that accept it as valid and reasonable, considering it's pseudoscientific garbage with a pretentious name and cult following.

You are just using a different way of asking the same question so here goes: If you are indeed married and hide your wedding band when you go pickup chicks, that's definately shady.

However, you do not go out to a scene with a sign sticking on your forehead stating you are single, clean, and not a psycho. What you are asking of us to do is an explicit thing, so that's why we don't do it.

Explicit honesty is not the same as "sticking a sign on your forehead." It's just being honest. If you are single, you do be honest about that. If you're clean, same too. Most people give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to not being a psycho, but if you're a PUA practicing shady pick-up tactics you read from the internet maybe they shouldn't.

[Nylonathatep]

Explicit honesty is not the same as "sticking a sign on your forehead." It's just being honest. If you are single, you do be honest about that. If you're clean, same too. Most people give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to not being a psycho, but if you're a PUA practicing shady pick-up tactics you read from the internet maybe they shouldn't.

Let's Compromise. If a girl ask, I'll say I got some Protips on the PUA forum? kk?

[Bharrata]

Somewhat. But I highly doubt that Mystery Method is completely discarded from the PUA community. Aren't there different schools of thought etc?

Even then, as I've also said earlier in the thread, part of what makes it disturbing is that you had to learn how to do it, which means that it doesn't reflect your true "mating fitness" (in the same way that physical attractiveness is a part of mating fitness), which is why there's a call for PUA people to clearly disclose that they learned this stuff in a structured fashion early in a relationship.

The Myster Method is the first iteration of PUA; the most current literature is Owen Cook's RSD method that stress inner confidence.

Marlayna here probably have the same though process as you did, and assume that we all have to reinvent the circle every time when it comes to social interaction. Anything that isn't experience is a shortcut. In this case civilization and science won't advance beyond the stone age because we'll need to reinvent every bit of knowledge in our lives.

Surprisingly, that whole "mating fitness" thing goes back to Ladder theory, where the alpha male gets the best girl in the social group. Yet there's people in this thread that disregard Ladder Theory. I'll say it's like a job interview at this point. Outright lying in a resume is bad and we can all agree on this; polishing your resume to show your strenghts and hide your weakness is normal and there's nothing unethical about it.

First, I'm failing to see how "stressing inner confidence" is not re-inventing the wheel.

Here's Epictetus in 135 C.E. :

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

If that's not the same thing, without treating women or other people as means instead of ends, let me know.


Second, using the term "alpha" to describe human males unironically is the worst thing to happen to the internet lately.

[Nylonathatep]

First, I'm failing to see how "stressing inner confidence" is not re-inventing the wheel.

...and assume that we all have to reinvent the circle every time when it comes to social interaction.

The whole reinventing the wheel statement is refereing to learning how to soaicl interact with girls. You just rolled a 1 on reading comprehension here.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

I use make-up as a form of self-expression. My body is simply a warm and squishy canvas.

[Red Hal]

The whole reinventing the wheel statement is refereing to learning how to soaicl interact with girls. You just rolled a 1 on reading comprehension here.

Ooh, negging. Classy. Seriously, Nylonathatep, PUA is nothing more than a refinement of the 1980's "hard sell" as applied to getting laid, and any pretence otherwise is disingenuous. You are trying to defend the indefensible, and quite frankly I'm surprised you're still trying.

[JudeMorrigan]

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

Like that guy here?

http://xkcd.com/513/

Just to be clear, you DO realize that the point of that comic is that the guy in it does NOT respect the girl? If you're reading that and thinking that the guy in question in a sympathetic character, you're doing it wrong.

[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?

If you suspect that this fact might make a difference to a prospective partner, then you should mention it.

Exactly. Clearly for some of the women in the pictures in the link I posted, it would definitely make a difference to many prospective partners, and therefore they should make an honest disclosure of what they actually look like (with a picture). I really should've just said that.

I use make-up as a form of self-expression. My body is simply a warm and squishy canvas.

Good for you. I use conversation as a form of self-expression myself. Go self-expression!

[Bharrata]

First, I'm failing to see how "stressing inner confidence" is not re-inventing the wheel.

...and assume that we all have to reinvent the circle every time when it comes to social interaction.

The whole reinventing the wheel statement is refereing to learning how to soaicl interact with girls. You just rolled a 1 on reading comprehension here.

You should check your own reading comprehension, because that's what I was referring to, except I was trying to make the point that PUA is reinventing the circle and only getting to 180 degrees...instead of being a decent human being it's stressing that you should cultivate the qualities of one, because that will allow you to snag chicks, and of course once you snag chicks you can feel less insecure and know that finally, my god finally, you're a complete and fulfilled adult male.

I can see how you might assume that Epictetus was talking about how to interact only with other males, rather than every human being in society based off the quote.


Did I make my saving roll?


edit: just in case you're still not getting it, there's nothing wrong with changing yourself or realizing how your past behavior was undesirable and then improving such that it allows you to get laid or get whatever, what's wrong is assuming that getting laid is what will make you happy and successful and in the quest of doing so treating women as a means to the end of you becoming happy, as things, not people, which cause you to be happy and you measure/procure your happiness with, rather than another person whom you build or share happiness/fulfillment/contentment/hotsecks with

[Nylonathatep]

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

Like that guy here?

http://xkcd.com/513/

Just to be clear, you DO realize that the point of that comic is that the guy in it does NOT respect the girl? If you're reading that and thinking that the guy in question in a sympathetic character, you're doing it wrong.

Hense the origional argument:

There is a huge difference between "learning what people want" and "learning to respect what people want".

Looks like You just changed the argument on me and did a little bait and switch there. So allow me restate my own position:

Guys need to learn how to socially interact with girls. (This includes how to sense their interest, build rapport, and learning to to get frustrate and just walk if they don't sense mutual interest.) If that isn't a display of respect... I don't know what is.

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

So yes. Guys have to learn to not get hung up on girls. No we are not born with the knowledge on the ways of women, so we have to either learn from experience, or go to other sources like word of mouth from friends and some of the stuff they teach you in PUA.

So thanks for supporting my argument.

[JudeMorrigan]

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

Like that guy here?

http://xkcd.com/513/

Just to be clear, you DO realize that the point of that comic is that the guy in it does NOT respect the girl? If you're reading that and thinking that the guy in question in a sympathetic character, you're doing it wrong.

Hense the origional argument:

There is a huge difference between "learning what people want" and "learning to respect what people want".

Looks like You just changed the argument on me and did a little bait and switch there. So allow me restate my own position:

Guys need to learn how to socially interact with girls. (This includes how to sense their interest, build rapport, and learning to to get frustrate and just walk if they don't sense mutual interest.) If that isn't a display of respect... I don't know what is.

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

So yes. Guys have to learn to not get hung up on girls. No we are not born with the knowledge on the ways of women, so we have to either learn from experience, or go to other sources like word of mouth from friends and some of the stuff they teach you in PUA.

So thanks for supporting my argument.

Erm, I'm well aware of what the original argument was. The part you seem to be missing is that it's something any decent human being should already know. Not any human being period. The guy in the comic wasn't a particularly decent person. Neither it, nor anything I've said, supports your argument at all.

That said, I'm personally not inclined to say that anyone who engages in helpless pining is not a decent person. But the guy in that comic isn't simply doing that. He's being quite (passive) aggressive with the lady. Which is really no better than being aggressive-aggressive about trying to get a lady to change her mind. Which is the problem that many of the PUA-advocates here seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths about.

[Marlayna]

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

Like that guy here?

http://xkcd.com/513/

That guy is not a decent human being (because he only sees friendship as a means to an end, and because he is willing to take advantage of someone's unhappiness). Where do we disagree?

So PUA teaches you to not have an ulterior motive and not try to manipulate whereas you otherwise would?

[Nylonathatep]

You should check your own reading comprehension, because that's what I was referring to, except I was trying to make the point that PUA is reinventing the circle and only getting to 180 degrees...instead of being a decent human being it's stressing that you should cultivate the qualities of one, because that will allow you to snag chicks, and of course once you snag chicks you can feel less insecure and know that finally, my god finally, you're a complete and fulfilled adult male.

Did I make my saving roll?

You got evasion and while it hits you, you made your save and takes no damage.

I can't disagree with you that PUA is reinventing the circle, but it is necessary because the times and enviroment has changed. Please refer to an old post I made on this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81485&p=2902681#p2902681

Besides.. what are those qualities that you speak of? If it is coming out of your shell, learning social skills.. well that's a part of what RSD teaches. I think the problem is that you assume that everything have to be done in self-discovery, and It doesn't. You assume that some guy can just go watch some tapes, read a book, and then can have his way with any chicks.

I can tell you even the old MM methold warned against that, "No matter how good you are, you'll never be able to bang every girl in this world. If you walked into a club assuming that you would, you'll fail at getting any chicks."

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

Like that guy here?

http://xkcd.com/513/

That guy is not a decent human being (because he only sees friendship as a means to an end, and because he is willing to take advantage of someone's unhappiness). Where do we disagree?

So PUA teaches you to not have an ulterior motive and not try to manipulate whereas you otherwise would?

The comic link is posted as a response to your argument. It's about how a guy has to learn to leave when it isn't working, and no it's something an AFG has to learn.. so look at the comic, look back at the initial statement that you've made.. and respond to it. Don't go changing the argument on me again.

[Jave D]

I can't disagree with you that PUA is reinventing the circle, but it is necessary because the times and enviroment has changed.

No, PUA is not necessary.

I can understand you might be wanting to defend it as an acceptable option to take, but necessary? That just reeks of choice-confirmation bias in the extreme.

[Marlayna]

The part that's in italics is something you shouldn't have to learn. Any decent human being knows to do that.

Like that guy here?

http://xkcd.com/513/

That guy is not a decent human being (because he only sees friendship as a means to an end, and because he is willing to take advantage of someone's unhappiness). Where do we disagree?

So PUA teaches you to not have an ulterior motive and not try to manipulate whereas you otherwise would?

The comic link is posted as a response to your argument... so look at the comic, look back at the initial statement that you've made.. and respond to it. Don't go changing the argument again.

The comic is not a response to my argument.

[Shro]

Here is the crux of my problem with it all about "increasing mating fitness" and all that, I'm going to try to theory redux this to keep it from getting too boring:

Background:
The "increased mating fitness" stuff is some sort of evolutionary psychology idea that females will be attracted to womanizers* and sleep with womanizers because those behaviors are what they subconsciously, in their lizard brain, find attractive. Now it makes perfect sense on the male's part to be successful at mating with this sort of behavior. If they're good at appealing to the woman's lizard brain and she finds that attractive and then they mate and the gene gets passed on. It makes sense that this gene for this behavior persisted (especially in previous eras), since just one night of the female listening to the lizard brain may have resulted in offspring who now carry the gene for the behavior of appealing to the lizard brain.

Now sometimes the lizard brain and rational brain are completely in sync (or the holder of said brain has chosen to put rational thought aside, or the rational brain has been compromised in some way, like alcohol [the higher centers of the brain is one of the first things alcohol effects]) Sometimes there's a disconnect, since we often have to rationally put aside our lizard brain pleasures for whatever reasons.(for an empirical example of out of sync responses: see physiological vs subjective arousal).

What I understand some aspects of PUA to be:
As I understand, most people who turn to PUA have a problem of just how well women appeal to men's lizard brains (on account of their low waist to hip ratio) and thinking of it as pretty much a one sided contest, which is why it makes perfect sense to most of them to try and level the playing field, by also learning to appeal to the female lizard brain through the channels of social interaction available to them.

Why I have a problem with it:
Why are we is putting such value on the lizard brains in the first place? Aren't we a little bit more evolved than that? We're the only species that we know of that can deliberately look at their behavior and reject the lizard brain's ideas if we know that it's going to get us into trouble later. The part I find disrespectful is the deliberate attempt to bypass the woman's rational brain to get in her pants because it's what her lizard brain wanted.

[WithinThisMind]

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?

Woman says 'this makes a woman uncomfortable'
Man says 'pshah, does not'.

Who is more likely to be right?

And there is also quite a bit of this:

Woman says, 'this makes me uncomfortable'
Man says, 'does not, you are wrong'.

Ridiculous, isn't it? And yet that is what is happening.

Intent is not fucking magic. You may not 'intend' (and if you were honest, a lot of PUA tactics DO intend) to make a woman uncomfortable, but that is exactly what you are doing. PUA tactics take deliberate advantage of the social conditioning women experience, which I've pointed out repeatedly, to pressure women into reacting the way the PUA moron wants. They take advantage of the woman's discomfort in appearing to be 'the bitch' who tells a guy to go away in order to continue the conversation by deliberately disregarding and ignoring social cues that she wants the conversation to end. They use silly justifications like 'well she touched her hair when she said she was waiting for somebody, so that means she must really want to talk to me.' They take advantage of the fact that a woman may be uncomfortable in leaving the populated area to avoid the PUA moron, and then justify as 'well she didn't flee into the dark parking lot to escape me, so she must still want to chat'. Or the 'well she didn't knee the guy three times her size in the groin so she must be okay with him touching her boobs' defense.

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.

And your point is?

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.

And your point is?


PUA tactics take advantage of the social conditioning women experience to make them uncomfortable. This discomfort is used to attempt to control how the woman responds, due to taking advantage of the social conditioning. That's the problem. That is what we have pointed out to you. That is what you are trying desperately, to the point you must engage in willful ignorance, not to get. I've pointed out the social conditioning that PUA tactics are taking advantage of, and been ignored. And that is because to the PUA moron, the woman in the equation doesn't matter. She's a means to an end, and that end is bragging rights to his male buddies.

[WithinThisMind]

The whole reinventing the wheel statement is refereing to learning how to soaicl interact with girls. You just rolled a 1 on reading comprehension here.

Are you capable of socially interacting with guys?

Then you are capable of socially interacting with girls. The problem is that you don't see women as people, so you don't treat them as people. Try seeing women as actual people, with actual brains and actual personalities, and the rest will flow naturally.

[J Thomas]

I'm a mostly neutral party here, and I'm ready to try to sum up the anti-PUA themes.

1. The very idea of PUA creeps me out. And anybody who doesn't feel like that also creeps me out.

This is not an argument, and there is no possible argument against it. If somebody said "I don't like broccoli" would they be convinced if somebody else explained that it's healthy, and nutritious, and not the least bit fattening, and there are things in it that slow down some cancers? You don't taste it as much if you smother it in cheese? Getting creeped out at the idea is a valid feeling and that's all there is to it.

2. What if I had sex with somebody and then it turned out they were a creepy PUA? That would be waaaayyyyyyyyy creepy.

This is a valid point of view. It's just like "What if I had sex with somebody and then it turned out they were a Republican?". The obvious solution is to ask them if they're a Republican before it gets too far. Except they might lie about it, and so might the creepy PUA.

3. PUAs think they can manipulate me into having sex with them. That's creepy.

I agree. It bothers me when anybody thinks they can manipulate me into anything. I make my own choices, and I don't get manipulated unless people lie to me about the facts and I believe them, or they frame the facts in a way I wouldn't have framed them, etc.

4. There are some stupid women out there who can actually get manipulated into things, and it's despicable to abuse them.

I agree. Such women deserve to be protected from manipulation, and yet somehow they are considered legally adult and they get exposed to all sorts of things. They might even get manipulated into voting Republican, and there's nothing anybody can do about it except somehow teach them to think for themselves.

5. What if this stuff actually worked on me? That would be horrible! I don't want anybody manipulating me!

I feel the same way. If there was, say, a perfume or makeup or something that converted the women I would otherwise be moderately attracted to into extremely attractive, when I was open to sex or to a relationship, I wouldn't mind at all. It's pleasant in the short run, and in the long run it isn't that important. If there was a perfume that made me mad with lust so I didn't get to choose, I'd find that extremely creepy.

I very much doubt this PUA stuff can do that much. If you're already open for a fling, If you're ready for something with somebody who looks OK, and a PUA guy comes along who looks OK, then maybe. I doubt it can do any more than that. If it can, then you really ought to study PUA and study yourself, to see what's going on with you. It doesn't bother me so much that there are ads which claim that any sociopath can learn Krav Maga and learn how to kill me in 10 seconds. There are very few people going around doing that in my social circles. But if you can get manipulated into sex, it's likely to happen to you within a few years.

6. There are a bunch of creepy guys who can't get sex, who go crazy about it. What if some of those learn this stuff and try to pass as normal people? I could get involved with one of them, and that would be horrible.

Unless you're somebody who gets involved with people quick, based on shallow surface stuff, that won't happen.

7. But they're likely to ask me for sex when I don't want them to. That's creepy.

You have a right to your feelings. And at the moment it isn't illegal for them to ask you for sex. You have the right to say no. If you want to be sure that never happens, you could perhaps find some arab husband who will keep you in purdah where you never have to worry about it.

8. They should read my subtle body language and never ask me when I don't want them to.

Maybe so. Are they less likely to ask you when you don't want them to if they get some sort of training in what to look for?

9. Sometimes men keep asking even after I say no. This is distressing.

Agreed. Especially when they've been drinking, right? Men tend to act less responsibly when they drink. If it's too much of a problem you might look for ways to reduce it. You could try to look ugly. You could be very plain and convincing when you say no. You could go to lesbian bars. You could find a husband who will always protect you.

10. But it's wrong for me to have to say no. I feel uncomfortable, and nobody should ever do anything that makes me feel uncomfortable.

I run into that attitude sometimes. Like, one time I went to a used bookstore and I wanted to sell back a book I'd bought there for 1/2 the selling price. The guy who was supposed to approve that got all upset that I brought him a book he didn't want and he had to say no. Then I remembered the time I was driving a long distance and I stopped at a convenience store to use the restroom, and the clerk wouldn't let me use it. I bought a candy bar and then he said I could use his restroom. "That makes you a customer and not just a damn nuisance." So I chose the books I wanted to buy, and then I went back to him about the one I didn't want to carry home. He yelled at me and people looked at us from all over the store because he was yelling. He was truly upset that I had made him say no again. He should not have been working retail.

And on a forum kind of like this one I met a guy who was strongly opposed to using condoms. He grudgingly agreed he'd use condoms provided a few conditions were met -- they must feel exactly like he was not wearing them, and they must be 100% reliable, and they must taste completely natural and good, and a few more. I figured this was somebody who really needed to be alone until he got into a monogamous relationship for life. But his position was that he deserved not to be bothered with anything he didn't want to be bothered about. It was some kind of special sense of entitlement. I can understand that there are similarly women who don't want to have to say no.

11. When a man I don't want asks me for sex, I'm afraid. He might rape me. I'm afraid if I say no he might get violent.

There can be a legitimate fear there. Some women do get raped. I expect that on average women are more likely to get raped if they don't say no, than if they do say no. Rapists are probably pretty diverse -- they are antisocial perverts after all, so there might not be anything we can say that's true of all of them except that they sometimes rape people. But it makes sense that a rapist who's looking for a victim and meets a strong assertive woman might be more likely to look for some other target. That isn't dependable. But neither is anything else. If you passively let a rapist do whatever he wants, he might do violence anyway. He might kill you even after you actively help him fulfill his fantasies. You don't have a lot to lose by being honest and saying no.

Some men who keep pushing when they don't get a firm no might likely stop when they do get one. Maybe assertiveness training would help. Also it's potentially a good thing to teach men to do their invitations in public, and then if you want to, you go someplace private after you've agreed. There are people who think that spoils the moment, but it didn't for me. I dunno. Maybe Krav Magra training would help. Maybe men will get the idea you're saying no if you rip their cheeks out. But of course, lots of women don't want to have to learn how to rip out somebody's cheek. The world ought to be set up so they won't get raped no matter what they do. That's how it would be if things were fair.

12. So there are these crazy creepy men who only want women for sex, and they take these creepy classes, and that makes the classes even creepier.

Yes. Some of the PUA classes advertise for customers like that, because they're in an intensely competitive environment and it's hard to fill the classes, and that is a potentially lucrative market. And women see the ads. So, if some of the men actually get less creepy, if they figure out that women are just like human beings _{that was a joke, of course women are human beings, I hate having to explain jokes} then isn't that a good thing? If they learn to take no for an answer and look elsewhere, isn't that a good thing?

13. But it's crazy creepy men who only want women for sex! That's just creepy.

Yes, and there are some women who only want men for sex. The quicker those find each other and stop bothering the rest of us, the better. Agreed?

14. But if they learn how to seduce women, they might actually seduce some women. That's creepy and disgusting.

I don't know what to say about this. Maybe you should set up classes to teach women who like one-night-stands not to like them?

15. It isn't about what anybody ought to do. The point is that PUA guys are creepy and disgusting. They were just as creepy and disgusting before they took up PUA, and the idea that they might learn to pass as human is even worse.

Those are legitimate feelings. I'm more interested in what people can do to change things for the better, myself. What good does it do to just tell people you're disgusted with them, without any idea what anybody can do?

16. The disgusting people ought to just go off and die or something. I don't want anything to do with them. They should not be living in my world.

Well still, how would things work if they actually worked?

17. The way it's supposed to be, nobody has to ask, and nobody has to answer. Things just work out like magic. You both know what you want and what the other wants. True communication. No confusion, except that wonderful confusion of true love.

And has it often worked this way for you?

18. You don't worry about whether it will ever happen. It will happen when it's meant to. If you get old and die without it, then you just weren't fated for it. But if it is fated for you, that's wonderful.

Men aren't brought up to think this way. Men like to ask because they aren't always sure they know how you feel.

19. You have to ask before you do anything. Then ask every time you take it a step farther. Don't just assume the answer will be yes, because if you do then you're basicly a rapist.

I get the impression there's this cultural or biological difference. Men believe they need to take initiative and try to make things happen, while women tend to want to wait for men to take the initiative. Is that true?

20. No. There are no important differences between the way men and women think. They're basicly just alike. Except that a whole lot of men are creepy and weird.

So anyway, what should men do different?

21. You act like you aren't as disgusted by POA as I am. That means you're creepy and weird. Just go away,

[JudeMorrigan]

I'm a mostly neutral party here.

I find this statement less than compelling given how much complete bullshit the rest of the post contained.

[philsov]

Maybe he was trying to be clever and tongue in cheek?

[ShortChelsea]

Any guy who considers a woman as some adversary that need to be conquered --by playing any dirty trick-- should really ask himself if he simply isn't a closeted homosexual. After all such person can hardly claim that he loves women.

Sigged. In mulitple forums that I use.

[Jave D]

Hmm, allow me to summarize the pro-PUA themes in this thread!

1. PUA is just a self-improvement confidence-building peer support group!

2. Okay, but women are creepy and manipulative too and it's just leveling the playing field!

3. I don't get what's wrong with seeing women as notches on your belt!

4. Fine fine, some members and aspects of PUA are disgusting and creepy. But that's not real PUA!

5. The moderators are against us, it's a conspiracy!

6. PUA works though! What could be morally wrong with something that's practical?

7. What, like we're going to try experience and talking to women as people when clearly the best, nay, the necessary and only way to understand the female psyche is to discuss with similarly-minded men how best to manipulate women into fucking!?

8. There are two types of guys in the world - those who understand the deep philosophical, psychological and sociological wisdom imparted by PUA techniques and knowledge, and those who don't!

9. Men using PUA techniques to get laid is exactly like women wearing clothes! In fact, it's not as deceitful!

10. Women using and abusing **misogyny not found** is the greatest evil of all time and rape is just men fighting back! Not that I condone rape. In fact I have no idea why anyone would associate my wisdom teachings with rape culture at all!


My summary is actually based on actual things the pro-PUA crowd here has actually said in this very thread.

[J Thomas]

And here's a try at the pro-PUA themes.

1. There's nothing wrong with learning techniques that work, is there? Don't people learn engineering? Don't swimmers get swimming coaches? If you're learning to play the guitar don't you get a teacher? What's wrong with doing that about this too?

In theory I agree. But a lot of women seem to feel like dating is a sort of adversarial relationship, and they don't want you to get an advantage.

2. But I'm not looking for an advantage *over* women! I just want to learn how to be the sort of man they would like.

In my experience, women are diverse and they want diverse sorts of men. But a lot of men could stand to learn not to be so self-defeating. For example, a man who chooses a particular woman and then he waits for her to initiate a sexual relationship, is likely to wait until he decides it's never going to happen and finally wanders off. There are women who initiate that, but they are rare. Is that the sort of thing these guys teach?

3. Yes! Exactly! That's all there is to it, they teach men not to be self-defeating. Nothing more. We don't manipulate women, ever.

Well, but the advertising sometimes looks like it promises that you'll learn how to manipulate women.

4. That's just false advertising. It isn't real. It isn't manipulation. Here's the thing -- men start out getting interested in sex, and women warm up to it gradually. That's just a way men and women are different. So if I start talking to a woman, chances are she isn't feeling hot right at that moment. Women don't usually just walk around that way like men do. If I can gradually get her interested, then she's likely to notice that she likes being with me and that she'd like to have sex with me. But that isn't manipulation. That's just how it works.

It sounds kind of like manipulation. She starts out not interested in sex, and you try to get her interested. You have a goal, and she's just the one whose mind you're changing around to reach your goal.

5. You make it sound bad, but it's just the way things go with men and women. If I hadn't learned it in a class, wouldn't it be OK then?

For myself, I'm unclear about all of this. If it's true that women generally get interested in sex slower, and start out generally uninterested, what does that mean? I think it's important that the birthrate ought to be high enough, and that the children get taken care of. That's what matters the most. Random mating that mostly doesn't produce children isn't very important. Random mating that spreads STDs is a bad thing. I don't see the advantages that make all this time and money spent on random seduction valuable. Women who don't want to get involved in sex but who get involuntarily aroused and then fucked while they're not in their right minds, would have a legitimate gripe regardless of the details. Does that happen much? I'd sure hate that to happen to me. Is it just that women sometimes do really stupid things and then blame it on that when they can't think of any better excuse for it? I dunno.

6. I don't know either. So part of the problem is that early on we got associated with NLP. They were doing all this stuff that was supposed to manipulate people. They were teaching it to salesmen and diplomats and such. I think it was mostly hokum, but I did get one good thing from it. In my job as a military interrogator, I found that when people are just remembering stuff they look off to the side and up in one direction, and when they're thinking about it they look off to the side and up in the other direction and that way....

Stop! Hold! TMI! If the stuff didn't work, why use it?

7. Somehow the guys who used it got more students and customers than the ones who didn't. I guess they were just better salesmen and marketers. So it took over.

But they got this bad reputation.

8. Yes, exactly! It outcompeted everything else, but it got a bad reputation which makes it worse for everybody involved with it. And still nobody can compete with them, because the bad reputation gets smeared on everybody.

So it's like natural selection and free competition got the wrong result. Everybody did the best they knew how and a completely free market failed. There are people who claim free markets can never fail--

9. I'm only here to talk about PUA. It works in the short run. You find a girl, you get her interested in sex, you ask her, she says yes. If it looks like she won't or it will take too long, you say goodbye and try again with somebody else. If she actually gets interested then who should complain? She wants sex, you want sex, everybody gets what they want, no regrets.

Maybe she'll have some regrets.

10. We try to weed out crazy women because they cause too much trouble later. Anyway, the trouble is, if you want a relationship then you have sex with a woman first and then you find out whether she's somebody you want to be around. If not then you have to try to back out without hurting her feelings. Luckily, usually she's trying to back out without hurting your feelings so that makes it easy. And it's better than the alternative.

What's the alternative?

11. Say you spend a long time getting to be friends first. You're her friend, you've just about decided she's somebody you'd want to be with, and then somebody picks her up in a bar or something. She feels bad afterward or she feels good, whatever, and she tells you about it because you're her friend. She does that a couple of times and then she isn't going to think of you as somebody to have sex with at all. You don't have sex with the people you talk about your sex problems to.

Doesn't it ever happen? What about Leonard and Penny on Big Bang Theory?

12. That's a TV show. Anyway, it might happen a few times but it isn't likely. And in the meantime you aren't having sex with her.

So it's all about the sex?

13. It sounds like you think that's a bad thing. No, it isn't just sex. I mean, like say you can start up a relationship. Then it isn't just go out every Saturday and get rejected over and over until you find a girl who says yes. Actually having a girlfriend. She wants to have sex whenever you can both manage it! How is that not a better deal! Only somehow.... I don't know why, but so many women who seem completely normal when you're just seducing them, go batshit crazy after you agree to keep seeing them.

No doubt they have the same problem.

14. Yes! They say they do. I don't know why they keep wanting relationships considering how it turns out. Maybe she feels like if it's a 'relationship' and not just having sex, that means she isn't a slut. I don't understand it. But PUA is better than all the alternatives.

And yet people here keep calling you a bottom-feeding slimesucker.

15. Yeah. It just doesn't make sense. All us PUAs are doing is solving problems and sharing the solutions with each other. What's wrong with that?

Maybe women don't like to think of themselves as problems to be solved.

16. The women we get involved with don't have any problems with what we do. It's just these other women.

How do you know the women you interact with don't mind? Maybe they do, but they're scared to tell you. Maybe you're completely clueless about women.

17. That's insulting.

Well, but these other women would know. They're women too. They don't have to watch what you actually do, they can tell just by listening to how you talk exactly how other women would think about what you do. They're women, and all women think alike, so they know.

18. Don't give me that bullshit. I have enough experience with women by now to know that women are real diverse. If they all thought the same it would be easy to figure out how they think.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

19. I don't understand why they're so upset. When I listen to them talk, you know, if I met one of them and she talked like that I'd be gone in a heartbeat. Or maybe three heartbeats. I don't need that shit.

So you find them unattractive?

20. Absolutely.

But you haven't mentioned that in the discussion.

21. Of course not. That would be rude. What kind of person goes around telling people they're sexually unattractive? What good does it do anybody?

So why do you keep talking to them?

22. Because they keep talking about how creepy PUA is, and I want to set the record straight.

Whew! You have an uphill battle ahead of you. Everybody thinks you're awful. It's like being a socialist, or a member of the American Nazi Party. No matter what you say, everybody already knows you're wrong.

23. Yeah, it's exactly like that. Except those guys really are creepy and disgusting. Socialists? Yuck, what could they say to make up for what happened in the USSR or Communist China? There's nothing they could say. They're just complete scumbags. Not like me.

[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.

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

Well, i guess you're correct. He was an an "artist". But Michael Murphy is a good actor. M*A*S*H was a great movie. and no one else made the connection. So there you are.

[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.

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

Well, i guess you're correct. He was an an "artist". But Michael Murphy is a good actor. M*A*S*H was a great movie. and no one else made the connection. So there you are.

I meant wasn't an artist.

[felltir]

Oh my fucking god J Thomas, shut the fuck up. You strawmanning, pro-PUA asshole.

I've seen concentrated acid that was more neutral than you.

[folkhero]

Oh my fucking god J Thomas, shut the fuck up. You strawmanning, pro-PUA asshole.

I've seen concentrated acid that was more neutral than you.

What? You don't enjoy reading someone having a long tangential conversation with themself while claiming the intellectual high ground based on the objectivity of being 'neutral.' Well I guess not everyone likes watching public masturbation.