The Game

[Sinapse]

even if the service was bad the girl is still referred to in human terms. PUA is all about treating women as a piece of ass for personal gratification then discarding.

While we're making sweeping personal judgments that have no basis in fact, I think vanilla ice cream tastes like dog shit and chocolate ice cream is godly ambrosia.

Solong, Espanish and their ilk needn't bother replying to this because I have their sorry handles blocked.

Yeah, everybody knows already.. If you block someone, the idea is to stop talking to / about them.

And.. aren't you in jail? Sounds like LIFE blocked YOU.

 

[Solong]

I don't know if it's just me, but I find this whole PUA stuff totally obnoxious and disrespectful to women. Unlike the exchange of provider info where even if the service was bad the girl is still referred to in human terms. PUA is all about treating women as a piece of ass for personal gratification then discarding. Millions of guys are able to find women without resorting to all these pseudo scientific methods.

I am pretty sure that the qualities needed to be a PUA are the same symptoms prevalent in the 10% of the male population with autism or personality disorders.

This PUA section is divisive and detracts from the forum as a whole. It is fanatical in the same way some religions and political movements are.

Solong, Espanish and their ilk needn't bother replying to this because I have their sorry handles blocked.

Speaking of mindlessly demonizing something they haven't studied nor understand, or feels it threatens their "monger lifestyle"... It's not like you must be one or the other... Just sad.

 

[Solong]

And.. aren't you in jail? Sounds like LIFE blocked YOU.

Wait... You can buy women in JAIL? That might not be vagina that he's buying.

And has stated he was sent to jail for mongering related charges. Just wow on the attitude!

 

[Hamerare]

Thanks for taking the bait bro!

My above post was an example of negging

You can't complain otherwise you'd be admitting your techniques don't work

I'm luvin it!

 

[Sinapse]

....that's not negging

 

[meiji]

Okay, enough thread derailing. Let's get back on topic, or thread bans will be forthcoming. Thanks.

 

[jacqueh]

I'm going to sound like an alien here. I think those PUA things are convenient, but I mostly see it as a set of techniques to bring unsuccessful and mildly successful men knowledge that will make them more fortunate with dating. A small fraction of men have the skill set and physical attributes to attract the women they want while acting naturally. Some men just don't, and they all those methods, books and seminar help this. It levels the field.

Most men hating on PUA are on two ends of the spectrum of success with women. They're either very unsuccessful and are mad at anything other guys to to get better, or are quite successful with women, and argue those techniques are disrespectful and fake. Some go as far as arguing that as long as you act naturally, you'll find the one, or other variations of an unfounded utopia ignoring real world struggle of most men. Who would welcome more competition anyway? Better discard it as fake and sleep better.
Women usually dislike this whole PUA thing because it naturally reduces their power, which lies in the natural imbalance between male and female attraction.

Saying one shouldn't learn those things is like saying one should not learn management and corporate politics. It is obviously absurd, even if some are naturally talented at it, learning management will help you reach similar positions in life as those natural managers. Learning those PUA techniques helps you access similar women as those naturally gifted men.

 

[Hamerare]

I'm going to sound like an alien here. I think those PUA things are convenient, but I mostly see it as a set of techniques to bring unsuccessful and mildly successful men knowledge that will make them more fortunate with dating. A small fraction of men have the skill set and physical attributes to attract the women they want while acting naturally. Some men just don't, and they all those methods, books and seminar help this. It levels the field.

Most men hating on PUA are on two ends of the spectrum of success with women. They're either very unsuccessful and are mad at anything other guys to to get better, or are quite successful with women, and argue those techniques are disrespectful and fake. Some go as far as arguing that as long as you act naturally, you'll find the one, or other variations of an unfounded utopia ignoring real world struggle of most men. Who would welcome more competition anyway? Better discard it as fake and sleep better.
Women usually dislike this whole PUA thing because it naturally reduces their power, which lies in the natural imbalance between male and female attraction.

Saying one shouldn't learn those things is like saying one should not learn management and corporate politics. It is obviously absurd, even if some are naturally talented at it, learning management will help you reach similar positions in life as those natural managers. Learning those PUA techniques helps you access similar women as those naturally gifted men.

Toujours comme tu veux mon ami!

One should not learn management and corporate politics

 

[User#16452]

.

 

[Sinapse]

I think I know the website you mention..

But I for one prefer to hear your take on it ^^

 

[Hamerare]

I know you wasn't addressed me but there is a whole bunch of PUA forums I was surprised

Reading the field reports is amusing if nothing else. Makes the one here look intelligent

Even Jacqueh and the non native English speakers on TAG express themselves far better than the dudes on the sites I looked at

Maybe I should become a PUA myself. I've forgot what it's like to talk to a woman.

By the way, what happened in the days before PUA was invented? Did anybody get laid?

 

[Wwanderer]

I'll do better than that: I can PM you the website and how I managed to get an account so you can make your own decision.

Sure, that's fine, but like @Sinapse, I am interested in hearing your opinion, irrespective of mine.

-Ww

 

[User#16452]

.

 

[Wwanderer]

Honestly, I don't know what you expect me to say that I haven't said already.

Fair enough. Basically I am just wondering whether you think the media's portrayal of PUA is as distorted and sensationalized as @Sinapse and others claim or if the material you saw from the PUA forum left you "pleasantly surprised" compared to what you expected based on media etc impressions.

The most rational "defense" of PUA we're seeing on TAG recently is along the lines of "PUA isn't what you think it is or what the media portrays but is actually something far nicer and even admirable/desirable, the 'real PUA', the way I do it, is a goid thing" etc. Without digging into PUA material oneself, it is hard to evaluate this defense/claim, but since you have already done that spade work, ...

(Btw, the irrational and irrelevant defense of PUA that seems surprisingly common in recent threads is basically to claim p4p is worse or less manly or more shameful or whatever than PUA.)

-Ww

 

[User#16452]

.

 

[Wwanderer]

It might be easier if you gave me some specific media articles. Certainly, I do not recall seeing anything myself that I thought was incorrect or difficult to believe, whether in the media or when PUA is discussed on other forums.

OK, here are a couple:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/12/pua-pick-up-artists-julien-blanc-dapper-laughs (I posted the link before in another PUA thread.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-red-pill-reddit-2013-8

And lots more can easily be googled up of course.

A particularly relevant one, considering the OP of this thread, is the book THE GAME. Probably you do not want to read a whole book (if you haven't already), but you can get the flavor of it from its listing on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Game-Penetrat...=UTF8&qid=1449849715&sr=1-4&keywords=the+game

which includes excerpts, ratings/comments from readers and editorial reviews. For example, one of those reviews says this:

"by using high-powered marketing techniques he's turned seduction into an effortless craft--even inventing his own vocabulary. His technique sounds like a car salesman's tip sheet: his main rule is FMAC--find, meet, attract, close. He employs the "three-second rule"--always approach a woman within three seconds of first seeing her in order to avoid getting shy. Other tricks: Intrigue a beautiful woman by pretending to be unaffected by her charm; also, never hit on a woman right away. Start with a disarming, innocent remark, like "Do you think magic spells work?" or "Oh my god, did you see those two girls fighting outside?" And finally, the most important characteristic of the pickup artist--smile."

Fwiiw, the above quote describes my personal, media-report-based impression of PUA...basically a lot of semi-dishonest and manipulative Salesmanship 101 techniques projected onto the process of meeting, picking-up and seducing women. What I'm asking you, basically, is whether or not you received a similar impression from the material you saw in/on that PUA forum and in the videos of the "training sessions" you viewed or did you get a more benign/good impression of PUA from that material? @Sinapse apparently believes that you would have a more positive view were you to attend one of his "bootcamp" sessions...that is the root of my curiosity in this case.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

I suspect, @Wwanderer that you may be a "PUA" under my definition? Does that scare you?

Yes, more than words can possibly express!

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

Women usually dislike this whole PUA thing because it naturally reduces their power, which lies in the natural imbalance between male and female attraction.

Saying one shouldn't learn those things is like saying one should not learn management and corporate politics. It is obviously absurd, even if some are naturally talented at it, learning management will help you reach similar positions in life as those natural managers. Learning those PUA techniques helps you access similar women as those naturally gifted men.

Obviously (by now) I disagree, but let me try to articulate why in terms of the points you make above.

First, it is NOT that I am against learning skills and techniques in general and in all areas of life, preferring to rely on "natural talent". It totally makes sense to study and acquire skills in many pursuits, certainly including your examples of management and corporate politics. However, imo, there are other areas of life in which it is more appropriate, effective and wise to rely on your own nature and intuition. Mating, courtship and relationships are among them. Another would be "friendship"; would you study "techniques" of friendship or take a "boot camp" in how to be someone's friend? These, in my view, are expressions of one's personality and identity that should come from within and not to be acquired by self-consciousnessly adopting/mimicking someone else's ways of behaving and relating to people.

Second, your statements that PUA reduces the women's "power" and opposes a "natural imbalance" between men and women illustrate how the PUA mindset promotes an adversarial attitude toward the whole process of meeting and dealing with women. The unintended consequences of this attitude are often profound and quite negative for everyone concerned imo and experience.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

My version of "true PUA" (though I shy away from the actual phrase "PUA" because it seems kinda slimy) would include anyone who:

-consistently takes action towards talking to and meeting the women they like
-reflects on their action and tries to improve it
-studies/observes body language, conversation patterns, and social dynamics (how people act alone vs with friends, or with coworkers, in different arenas, etc)
-comes from a place of deep honesty and curiosity about the other sex

I suspect, @Wwanderer that you may be a "PUA" under my definition? Does that scare you?

Answering this question a little more seriously, I'd say that your first and last point fit me pretty well, but that the second and third do not...or only very slightly at most. In fact, I would say that my level of satisfaction in my interactions and relationships with women increased dramatically when I stopped doing #2 and #3 on your list...around the age of 18-19yo. It was shortly after the discovery of electricity I think!

That said, there have been a couple of occasions on which women have told me that I use (or "accused" me of using) "techniques" in dealing with women in an unconscious way. One, in a very general way, said to me, "Ww, you have so much game that you are not even aware of game...like a fish isn't aware of water." Another quite wonderful young woman said that I use "tricks" in how I speak to women (and men too I think) to make them pay attention to me, things like pausing and lowering my voice just before making an important point or saying something I particularly want the listener to remember. (I was not and still am not aware of doing such things btw.) Nevertheless, overall, I don't think that I *deserve* to be called a PUA in either a bad or good sense.

Really, I'm not sure the % at all.

I really wasn't expecting or looking for a number but rather just wondering whether you think the fraction of guys who should be considered true PUAs *by your definition* (or some other term if you don't like "PUA") is some really tiny amount, 1 in a 1000 or less say, or some small but not tiny fraction, maybe a few percent, or is a minority but not a tiny one, maybe 20-30%, or...

I've slept with quite a large number of women, but no matter how sexy or skillful, I've never found one I'd consider paying for.. mostly because I basically just don't think sex is worth money.. it's like creating art or dancing - something beautiful to be done for its own sake, not as a transaction.. but who knows

These are interesting views and implied questions, and we really should have a thread (or threads) to talk about p4p separate from PUA discussions (to which I see little connection), but for the moment let me ask if you think it inappropriate for artists and dancers to be paid for what they do? It reminds me of a long and heated debate I once had with an *extremely* successful attorney on another forum in a galaxy far far away in which he claimed (among many other things) that sex is too personal, too much a part of who one is at a deep level, to sell to strangers. I asked him if he believed that sex was more personal than one's thoughts, beliefs and experiences. He said "no" that those were at least as personal etc as sex. Then I asked him what he sold to his clients. He was principled and stand-up enough to admit that he had to yield on that argument.

-Ww

 

[jacqueh]

However, imo, there are other areas of life in which it is more appropriate, effective and wise to rely on your own nature and intuition. Mating, courtship and relationships are among them. Another would be "friendship"; would you study "techniques" of friendship or take a "boot camp" in how to be someone's friend? These, in my view, are expressions of one's personality and identity that should come from within and not to be acquired by self-consciousnessly adopting/mimicking someone else's ways of behaving and relating to people.

Respectfully disagree. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but let me tell you about a past experience.
A few years ago, when working for some large company, I and hired a guy that was really talented, had graduated from an Ivy League university, and had worked for one of those companies only hiring the top 1% of applicants. Some day I pointed to him that most people I met with backgrounds similar to his were much less social and friendly. He told me his attitude used to make him lose friends, so he bought books, talked to people, worked on it, and became much happier with his life as a result. He was the stereotypical "I'm right" type of person whose attitude simply tired people around him (most people do not appreciate debating). Working on this was a win for everyone he knew, including me (as his attitude made him a great team player).
All this to say, even friendship is something people can be helped with, and I don't think courtship and dating should be excluded of it.

Moreover, I don't consider studying PUA things merely "self-consciousnessly adopting/mimicking someone else's ways of behaving and relating to people". The few resources I've found spend more time highlighting the reasons why most men fail, and what women are usually looking for. Techniques come after, as as application of what the learner understood from the basic psychology lessons. Humans learn from imitation, and PUA resources just enlarges the pool of people to learn from.

Not to put words in your mouth, but basically, your answer to "How do I get to stop all the women I meet from rejecting me or wanting me to be "just a friend"?" probably falls between "Stay natural, and follow your intuition that has led you to failure so far, it's gonna work some day.", and "Too bad, you're not made for this".
My answer is "Well, some people have put a lot of thought in this problem, consider reading from them, you might learn something helpful".
Some men just don't have enough empathy to put themselves in women's shoes without a bit of help.

 

[Sinapse]

He employs the "three-second rule"--always approach a woman within three seconds of first seeing her in order to avoid getting shy. Other tricks: Intrigue a beautiful woman by pretending to be unaffected by her charm; also, never hit on a woman right away. Start with a disarming, innocent remark, like "Do you think magic spells work?" or "Oh my god, did you see those two girls fighting outside?" And finally, the most important characteristic of the pickup artist--smile.

What exactly is reprehensible about this? Put aside whether or not you feel the need to do it yourself for a second as that's irrelevant since apparently you were born getting laid. You are making an argument it seems, across many posts that doing these kinds of things is morally wrong. So just to be clear you think that:

-talking to a woman shortly after you see her so as not to get nervous or psyche yourself out
-trying to not turn into a bumbling puddle in front of a woman, unable to form a sentence, but treating her like a normal human being rather than a paragon of beauty, to be worshiped
-starting with an innocent remark to start a conversation
and
-smile

are somehow morally wrong? I fail to see how any of these things are manipulative or dishonest (except maybe the indirect opener being slightly dishonest or at least hiding your intentions, but I never really liked those anyway.. however, @John Chavers in another thread cited one as his "technique" that apparently doesn't count as a "PUA trick." So which is it.. are indirect openers manipulative PUA scams or not? Can the haters compare notes so as not to get caught in tautologies?

Your argument is losing ground here and clinging only to abstract qualifiers or labels applied by yourself as a value-judgment without any basis in fact or proof. There is no "manipulation" involved, yet you repeatedly keep saying PUA = manipulation. Muslim = terrorist. KNEE-JERK REACTION. MASS HYSTERIA. MORAL JUDGMENT. APOCALYPSE!!!

I've already mentioned that women will repeatedly, and consciously manipulate men to buy them drinks, (and much, much more) but somehow this is okay? Women are given a pass for all manner of shitty behavior but suddenly when men are taught not to just sit down at eat it all up they are shamed? Really not following here...

"Ww, you have so much game that you are not even aware of game...like a fish isn't aware of water." Another quite wonderful young woman said that I use "tricks" in how I speak to women (and men too I think) to make them pay attention to me, things like pausing and lowering my voice just before making an important point or saying something I particularly want the listener to remember.

Yeah, so, you use the same "manipulation".. not really seeing why you criticize it in others?

Personally, I dont think there's anything wrong with what you're doing here, only the hypocrisy of lashing out at other guys for getting good at what you already do naturally.

 

[Sinapse]

Most men hating on PUA are on two ends of the spectrum of success with women. They're either very unsuccessful and are mad at anything other guys to to get better, or are quite successful with women, and argue those techniques are disrespectful and fake. Some go as far as arguing that as long as you act naturally, you'll find the one, or other variations of an unfounded utopia ignoring real world struggle of most men. Who would welcome more competition anyway? Better discard it as fake and sleep better.
Women usually dislike this whole PUA thing because it naturally reduces their power, which lies in the natural imbalance between male and female attraction.

^
Very much this.

Whenever you have someone succeeding at something, you will have haters. Often in inverse proportion to how well you are doing at life. Most men hate PUA because it highlights their own laziness and fear of talking to women themselves. They'd rather believe it was totally impossible to get better at it than risk having to confront their own lack of action to change their results. Just like fat people want to believe it's impossible to get skinny, or poor people want to believe that they'll never be rich. Yeah it might be hard, but if you put in time, you can achieve it. Anyone who tells you that you can't probably has an agenda tied to their own ego and lack of progress in that area

 

[Solong]

I know you wasn't addressed me but there is a whole bunch of PUA forums I was surprised

Reading the field reports is amusing if nothing else. Makes the one here look intelligent

Even Jacqueh and the non native English speakers on TAG express themselves far better than the dudes on the sites I looked at

Maybe I should become a PUA myself. I've forgot what it's like to talk to a woman.

By the way, what happened in the days before PUA was invented? Did anybody get laid?

There were always strategies and methods to get dates with women. However, most industrial countries began changing the "rules" of the game. The invention of birth control pills, abortion, the social acceptability of sex before marriage, sexual liberation, feminism, and the increased mentality of consumerism and materialism.

However, in such changes, women had an inherent and unacknowledged advantage that became even more pronounced. Women could get sex more easily, at will, and had more options. This is also called the cock carousel (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cock+carousel). Women quietly and hiding running through dozens to hundreds of men.

Women having sex, with less or dodging the accountability of the past. They had to worry less about pregnancy or bad reputations, particularly when they acted anonymously and stealthily.

But female behavior also tends toward hypergamy and social popularity. Roughly and arguably, 80% of women chaseing or wanting only to be receptive to the top 20% of guys, and reducing the opportunities for the rest. Meaning outside that more obvious top 20% of men and the less proactive a man is in finding a woman, the less opportunities to get women, as they aren't on her radar or deemed viable. Even lower level, uglier, and less educated women are more able or willing to use sexual attraction as a "trump" card for trying to get or "reserved" for "higher status" males.

In addition, women are now in the work place and the value of earnings from work has decreased. More workers, less companies willing to pay, as market favors them. That is, those men earning enough money to support a family has drastically decreased, where women must work. This creates a strong work culture, where many people have LESS free time or difficult schedules. Marriages are rarely arranged nor do most modern people want them to be, thus each person has greater responsibility to find a partner. But, this being a greater problem for men (less opportunities) that are outside of the top 20%, as women are less receptive towards them.

PUA is a reaction to such social conditions and the rise of the popularity of the Internet. Before useful strategies and methods for men propagated slowly, and also due to strong religious, traditionalist, and feminist backlash. However, due to the popularity of the Internet, information can't be so easily repressed. It has become a tool that filled the void of practically and realistically addressing dating problems and the study of the sexual seduction/attraction process.

PUA would have always come about, because of the need and demand for such information among men, in addition to consolidating and making such information accessible.

 

[John Chavers]

Anyone who tells you that you can probably has an agenda tied to their own ego

 

[Solong]

What exactly is reprehensible about this? Put aside whether or not you feel the need to do it yourself for a second as that's irrelevant since apparently you were born getting laid. You are making an argument it seems, across many posts that doing these kinds of things is morally wrong. So just to be clear you think that:

-talking to a woman shortly after you see her so as not to get nervous or psyche yourself out
-trying to not turn into a bumbling puddle in front of a woman, unable to form a sentence, but treating her like a normal human being rather than a paragon of beauty, to be worshiped
-starting with an innocent remark to start a conversation
and
-smile

are somehow morally wrong? I fail to see how any of these things are manipulative or dishonest (except maybe the indirect opener being slightly dishonest or at least hiding your intentions, but I never really liked those anyway.. however, @John Chavers in another thread cited one as his "technique" that apparently doesn't count as a "PUA trick." So which is it.. are indirect openers manipulative PUA scams or not? Can the haters compare notes so as not to get caught in tautologies?

Your argument is losing ground here and clinging only to abstract qualifiers or labels applied by yourself as a value-judgment without any basis in fact or proof. There is no "manipulation" involved, yet you repeatedly keep saying PUA = manipulation. Muslim = terrorist. KNEE-JERK REACTION. MASS HYSTERIA. MORAL JUDGMENT. APOCALYPSE!!!

I've already mentioned that women will repeatedly, and consciously manipulate men to buy them drinks, (and much, much more) but somehow this is okay? Women are given a pass for all manner of shitty behavior but suddenly when men are taught not to just sit down at eat it all up they are shamed? Really not following here...



Yeah, so, you use the same "manipulation".. not really seeing why you criticize it in others?

Personally, I dont think there's anything wrong with what you're doing here, only the hypocrisy of lashing out at other guys for getting good at what you already do naturally.

If I Don't Do It, Then You Can't, Otherwise I Get Upset

It certainly seems odd that whatever other men do that might even the odds in the social game in which they are at an inherent disadvantage, is condemned.

As if, because I don't do it or use it, then no other man should be allowed to use it. Because I'm afraid to talk to women, you should be too or don't. If you do what I don't or are afraid to do, then this upsets me...

Openers and Conversation Starters

I mentioned in other threads that this can be quite simple. Commenting about the woman or something she is wearing, comments about something occuring around you, asking for help with the Japanese language or culture.

"Wow that's very interesting nail polish and design, did you do that yourself?"

"You have great tastes in shoes, they look very nice. Did you buy those in Tokyo?"

"Wow, did you see that lady fall down the stairs? We have to watch our step and not always looking into our mobile phones while walking. "

"Excuse me, do you know the name of the Japanese actress on that poster over there?"

"Excuse me, may I ask you question? Which of these 2 words are more commonly used in Japanese?"

None such openers are dishonest. And all can reflect genuine interest in the subjet or the woman that a guy is talking to.

And why would starting a conversation with a person be a problem? Since when was it forbidden for men to talk to women or it considered abusive or harassment to simply speak?

The mindset behind such thinking is very interesting. I think it reflects a hidden social protocal and hierarchy, that certain people believe and expect all other men to follow, and get upset when they don't. As if they can't understand why other men don't want to follow such hidden rules, particularly if they negatively limit them or put them at a disadvantage.