I don't think it is wrong or bad; almost all hetro (men) do it. In that context is wanting to meet women you see on the street doing you any good? Apparently not, but correct me if I am wrong.
You are coming off a bit as if a man can't improve or become better at something (like how to approach women), or can't pursue a woman that he's interested in.
If he never takes a chance, then he will be ZERO percent successful. If he takes a chance, then there is the possibility of success.
You asked me for advise (or at least that was my interpretation, but correct me if I am wrong), and I gave you my best shot. Perhaps it will be useless for you, but it is what I have to offer. To reiterate, basically I said that if you can change your basic concepts of relationships and the way you think of women, then you will stop seeing women on the street and in supermarkets as though they were books on the shelf at the library for you to "pick up"
I see nothing at all wrong with p4p...
This is blatant hypocrisy and speaks to a level of feminist confusion, that needs to be addressed.
What you are speaking to, is objectification. A word in which feminist have twisted and spread a great deal of confusion. So that, a woman can look at a man in a sexual manner, this can be called sexually liberating. But an heterosexual man looking at a woman sexually (which would be natural for a heterosexual), can be defined as oppressive, terrible, and abusive. Now if a lesbian does such to another woman, then we are back to empowering and liberating again.
A hetrosexual man is going to be attracted to women. And when looking at and selecting a woman to talk with, he's going to usually want to choose those women he's most physically attracted to. This is how physical attraction works, for men and women.
Regardless of the physical attraction that a PUA or man in general has when approaching a woman, he must interact with her. He must address and deal with her personality, and who she is, before any sex is possible. So a PUA is NOT treating the woman as a commodity, but very much understands that women have agency. She can deny his request or reject him.
Objectification, is reducing people to commodities or objects that can be bought or sold without regards to their personality or dignity. That is arguably closer to what P4P is doing, and is the beef many have with it. Though the counter point is over sex-workers wanting to sell themselves, so if you want or volunteer for it, is it really objectification?
To say a man who is physically attracted to a woman and wants to have a conversation, is objectifying women, is to arguably not understand or ignore biology and the meaning of the word.
....meeting women just for sex as long as it is something you are doing ***with*** and not ***to*** the women in question, using those key words to make the distinction I tried to explain rather unsuccessfully in the dating problems thread from which this one was born. Sex workers (assuming no coercion) put themselves on the menu, so to speak, and so are doing it ***with*** you. Women in a happening bar (and in various other situations) may well want to meet just for sex and thus are involved in the process ***with*** you. Not so women on the street and in random public places. Do you see the difference?
Here, it appears you are against men talking to women, unless the woman initiates the conversation (like a military officer or superior to men- speak not, unless spoken to?) or makes it clear to men (in writing?) that it's OK to talk to her. In a public space, there is nothing wrong with initiating friendly conversations.
A man will not know if a woman is mutually attracted to him, unless he asks or interacts with her in some way. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with initiating a conversation. Only when the other person has declined or doesn't want to talk, and the other person is persistent, that it's a problem or arguably crossing the line toward harassment.
Furthermore, you strangely appear to deny female agency in the context of Non-P4P, and only in the P4P. A woman, who is politely approached by a man, can intelligently decide for herself what she wants to do. Whatever a woman will do, she will AGREE and do WITH the man. The man can do nothing legally to her, without her consent and cooperation. So this concept and making the distinction of "to" and "with", is not anything actionable to be applied in the real world. It's an artificial distinction that you are making, and looks like a way to vilify men attempting to initiate conversations with women they are attracted to. As if, PUA is only a one-way interaction of "doing to", when that's totally not the case. It's an interaction between the man and woman.
But if you want my advice, it is different...and to repeat once more, it is that changing your attitude toward women and your conception of relationships with them, you will make it unnecessary to be so deliberate, conscious and artificial. In its defense I can report that despite the fact that there is virtually nothing about me that would cause most people, men and women, to think that I'd be successful with women, I have been for essentially my whole adult life, wildly so in fact...far more than I can understand or think I merit/deserve in fact. Basically I am trying to explain my best understanding of why it has happened that way for me.
In addition, and this is VERY important, imo these changes of basic perspective I've described
will not only make it easier to meet women but will also make it easier to have happy and successful relationships with them. So to speak, they will save you the trouble of having to take a long series of additional boot camps in how to handle financial disagreements with your partner and how to support her grief effectively when she loses a parent and how to accept her support in a way that works for both of you when you have to face a major life-challenge etc etc. As I have said before, just meeting and seducing a woman is barely dipping your toe in the water of the huge lake of serious romantic relationships. Trust me, you don't want to have to be consciously learning a whole new set of little systems and techniques to navigate each of the many strong currents you will encounter in those waters. (Out of control metaphor alert!
)
-Ww
Here, you are offering guys something vague, unactionable, and with no evidence of how it works versus tangible and specific advice from PUAs. Often when a guy hypes up something vague and unspecific that will supposedly do wonders and is too good to be true, they will get accused of fraud or deception. Not at all saying that's what you are doing, but saying most other guys wouldn't get such leeway in being vague, while putting down other systems.
The only real world actionable system that you have put forth on the website, is to use money, to buy women. If you have another system, please explain it. Before anybody gets upset, I'm all for using what you got. If that's a man's game and it works, so be it. I'm just saying, be outright about it. Don't tell me it's charm, when she sees you got a fist full of cash. Rather hear specifically on how he might be using his money and perception of availability, to have women fall for him. At least that's clear.
If it's innate "charm" and "charisma", and a guy can't quantify or define how it's working for him with women, then he isn't going to be a good coach or teacher. It's like saying I'm a great Boxer. "When I get in the ring, I win". OK, that's great for him, but not for the students. His students want to know exactly how he is able to do it, not just perpetually stand in awe of or hear, "Be natural! Be like water! Be like the wind!" Does he even understand or can intellectually break down how he wins?
Yes, having money and the possibility of her attaining a higher socioeconomic lifestyle, can bend women to you. A rich, powerful, high social status, or at least very well off man can be given the impression that he's amazingly charming. Nobody around a powerful dictator or drug lord, would dare tell him anything other than he wants to hear. The women can be very easy for him. However, what's definitely working well for him, isn't necessarily applicable or will work for others.
