Am I Harassing A Girl By Approaching Her On The Street?

[Wwanderer]

When you go out in public, you are, whether you like it or not, opening yourself to be talked to by random people for whatever reason. It is part of the culture and background. Within those bounds, don't touch people or be aggressive, and you'll already be better than all of those guys I mentioned. Simple!

Damned with faint praise!

For those that don't know this English idiom, google it or see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=damn+with+faint+praise

-Ww

 

[Sinapse]

When I'm out picking up, I found that tapping them on the shoulder as I open the conversation works best,

I'd really recommend not touching girls if at all possible for the first few minutes of the interaction

It just one of the skills that could be learn and i really like the knowledge i get from here a lot with all this discussion so thanks .

Glad you get value from the conversation!

Japan doesn't really have a flirt culture at all.

Their flirt culture is
1. Get wasted
2. Finally be able to flirt because you're free from social pressure

 

[Sinapse]

You can hope and believe that more like it than dislike it, of course.

Yeah I'm judging by the most extreme cases because I assume that the less extreme cases are no more traumatizing than the low-level background noise of being in public and being talked to by, for example, izakaya touts. Basically, if I'm being respectful, unless they're really weird, jumpy, or aggro like Solong mentioned, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Solong]

@Solong with the distinctions you make between behaviors you label as "harassing" vs "approaching" etc, it appears to me that you are implicitly acknowledging/understanding that PUA can and in fact does bother some women, and in response you go about PUA in ways intended to minimize doing so. That seems just fine to me. You have both thought about the issue (which is all I suggested and which @Sinapse also recommended in the OP) and taken it into account in your own personal ways...and are at peace with it I presume.

Not everyone would reach the same conclusions or feel similarly about it of course. For example if I did something that even occasionally and unjustifiably (imo...but not theirs obviously) made people panic and run away with me (must be a pretty bad feeling for them), it would probably deter me from doing it without some overwhelmingly strong motivation. But we each have to make those judgements for ourselves.

But most importantly, I think your responses indicate that you agree that at least what some guys call PUA is unacceptably bothersome/harassing to women. For example, I believe that at someone (I've forgotten who) on TAG quite recently suggested tapping a girl on the shoulder to get her attention and establish physical contact/interest (or something like that) when first approaching her. And a while back @TokyoJoeblow reported trying to pick-up girls on the street by approaching them and putting his arm around their shoulders while talking to them. (I believe he got a lot of bad reactions, including many of them running away.)

The point I'm trying to make is that even if the way you practice PUA does not "cross the line" by your personal standards, the way others do it does. Thus, there is some merit in this criticism of cold PUA even if it does not apply to you personally. (As a teacher I know likes to say to her students in various contexts, "This is not *just* about you!")

-Ww

Ww, harassing women is NOT PUA. It defeats the entire purpose. Any guy doing that, doesn't know what he is doing or has a few screws loose. I don't know how to make it much more clearer than that.

Harassing women (or people) is an action that an individual person chooses to do over the obvious objection or displeasure of others. This would be the behavior of a sadistic person, not the goal of PUA.

If you put your arm around a woman and she is absolutely disgusted by it, shows sour faces, or runs away then you obviously are not getting anywhere with her sexually or relationship wise.

As for approaching people, if it's a public space, that's acceptable. A reasonable and rational adult should have no problem with it, especially when done politely.

If a woman approaches me with an Izakaya flier and I kick her in the face or run away screaming down the street then it's not the person who is approaching that has the problem. I would have the problem for overreacting and getting hysterical.

This includes me being so arrogant and elitist that I think such a "lowly" woman has no right to approach me in a public space. Really? Because if I'm royalty or mega rich, then my bodyguards should have blocked her from getting anywhere near me. And what am I doing taking the bus or eating at Burger King anyway, if I'm so above everyone else?

It's not "PUA" that is bothering a woman, but the individual person that is harassing her or her being excessively arrogant and haughty about being talked to.

Furthermore, it's not mine or your place to protect every woman and man from every interaction they might have with each other. People will try to talk to each other, will try to start relationships, and will try to date each other. Let it be so.

 

[Solong]

When you think about it, Japan doesn't really have a flirt culture at all.

All these Japanese business men are essentially buying women at kyabakuras and countless other entertainment establishments.

Most Japanese couples start out as friends and move at such a slow pace toward a sexual relationship that by comparison, nampa (even the most passive) looks like straight up molestation!

Maybe that is why many (not all) Japanese women (should I say girls?) overreact when I hit on them? I don't always approach aggressively and get physical. I have tried passive methods and have gotten the same creeped out reactions.

I also find it strange when most Japanese women become so uneasy around foreign men that they try to avoid them...even when they aren't even hitting on them.

I have had situations where I have made eye contact with Japanese women yards away and had them literally change direction or quickly look away, turn around, pretend they spotted something in the window of a shop, got a text on their phone, etc.

I just feel that here in Japan, all the women almost anticipate being hit on by any foreigner that they make eye contact with. I mean other than severe shyness or insecurity, why else would these women act so defensive within a such a brief and passing moment?

Both points are valid and are somewhat things that I have noticed in Japan.

1) Japanese who are excessively paranoid, fearful, or cowardly.

I think a lot of this comes from being in a closed off bubble, where there is little racial or international diversity. There are Japanese that are partially in shock to see a person of a different race in real life (so very sad).

Elements of the media perpetuate fear, paranoia, and hate. Foreigners are too often characterized as criminals or out to do something bad to Japanese. Many Japanese don't have any experience outside the bubble of all this negative propaganda, plus are very inexperienced or have ZERO experience with international relationships.

These things combined can result in Japanese that freak out or react in irrational and hysterical ways around foreigners. Very sad, but that's the problem Japan has by isolating itself.

2) Japanese guys buying women or arranged meetings and marriages.

Traditionally, Japanese women were treated more like property or have the purpose of only specific roles. Marriage for love or women able to freely choose, is pretty new in Japanese culture.

Consequently, men and women openly talking to each other in the way it's done in many Western societies is still limited and not fully understood. Additionally, many Japanese are even more fearful of rejection, at a much higher level than in Western cultures as well. It's a greater blow to their delicate pride or ego, many can't handle.

As result, a Japanese woman may have never had a guy ever approach in a public setting for a casual conversation in her entire life. To her, only salesmen may have ever done such, so she can look at an approach in this context. Add fear of seeing foreigners for the 1st time, very little international experience, and negative media propaganda about foreigners and you can get an hysterical and panicky Japanese women running down the block. However, not all Japanese women are this silly or simple-minded.

But while some Japanese are trapped in a backwards bubble world, it's still 2015, and not 1815. So foreigners have to treat such Japanese like a scared squirrel or children. Make them feel comfortable, and help them join the rest of the world and catch up to 2015.

 

[Wwanderer]

Ww, harassing women is NOT PUA. It defeats the entire purpose. Any guy doing that, doesn't know what he is doing or has a few screws loose. I don't know how to make it much more clearer than that.

Harassing women (or people) is an action that an individual person chooses to do over the obvious objection or displeasure of others. This would be the behavior of a sadistic person, not the goal of PUA.

If you put your arm around a woman and she is absolutely disgusted by it, shows sour faces, or runs away then you obviously are not getting anywhere with her sexually or relationship wise.

As for approaching people, if it's a public space, that's acceptable. A reasonable and rational adult should have no problem with it, especially when done politely. ...

As far as I can see, you are just trying to make an argument out of tautological semantics.

You define harassing and approaching as two different types of behavior that don't overlap and are quite distinct, "apples and oranges" so to speak. There are two problems with that view: First, it is very hard to believe that their aren't *any* grey areas or borderline cases, where someone is behaving in a way that some would call harassing but others wouldn't. Second and more importantly, these are not the only or even most commonly understood meanings of the terms. If they were, @Sinapse's question in the title of the thread would be incoherent/senseless, so presumably he doesn't see it that way. (His question would be, in effect, "Are apples oranges?" if he used the words the way you suggest in your post.) I also wouldn't define them as mutually exclusive, and we know for sure that some women dislike being approached (in a PUA sense) and consider it harassing.

Another comment is that you made the following (excellent and correct, imo) observation in another thread:

I'm just trying to get to the core of what this "PUA" debate is about. PUA is NOT 1 system or method, but many. So you usually can't say X about PUA and it apply across the board to everything.

But now you seem to be trying to say something "across the board" about PUA, namely that it is never harassing. Is that right? Or am I misunderstanding you? Perhaps you are just saying that your personal style of PUA is not harassing (in your opinion) but that PUA the way some other guys do it might be harassing. I'd be interested to hear which, if either, is actually your opinion.

-Ww

 

[Sinapse]

I interpreted his meaning to be that PUA, done well, is not harassment if the recipient is otherwise sane and well adjusted (doesn't freak out massively for no reason)

 

[Wwanderer]

I interpreted his meaning to be that PUA, done well, is not harassment if the recipient is otherwise sane and well adjusted (doesn't freak out massively for no reason)

OK, that is a perfectly fine answer to your question, though it also verges on the tautological and semantic if one simply *defines* "PUA done well" not to include what a sane and well adjusted person regards as harassment. And, at a slightly deeper level, if one considers anyone who feels harassed by PUA as insane and/or maladjusted, then it is another tautology.

-Ww

 

[Solong]

As far as I can see, you are just trying to make an argument out of tautological semantics.

You define harassing and approaching as two different types of behavior that don't overlap and are quite distinct, "apples and oranges" so to speak. There are two problems with that view: First, it is very hard to believe that their aren't *any* grey areas or borderline cases, where someone is behaving in a way that some would call harassing but others wouldn't. Second and more importantly, these are not the only or even most commonly understood meanings of the terms. If they were, @Sinapse's question in the title of the thread would be incoherent/senseless, so presumably he doesn't see it that way. (His question would be, in effect, "Are apples oranges?" if he used the words the way you suggest in your post.) I also wouldn't define them as mutually exclusive, and we know for sure that some women dislike being approached (in a PUA sense) and consider it harassing.

Another comment is that you made the following (excellent and correct, imo) observation in another thread:



But now you seem to be trying to say something "across the board" about PUA, namely that it is never harassing. Is that right? Or am I misunderstanding you? Perhaps you are just saying that your personal style of PUA is not harassing (in your opinion) but that PUA the way some other guys do it might be harassing. I'd be interested to hear which, if either, is actually your opinion.

-Ww

PUA and the word harass are 2 separate things. You appear to be purposely convoluting and twisting the terms as if the same. An individual person decides to harrass, which can have absolutely nothing to do with PUA.

The objective of nearly every style of PUA that I've seen or read about isn't to harrass women, because it's counterproductive. If you knew anything about PUA or were debating honestly, you would know this.

 

[Wwanderer]

The objective of nearly every style of PUA that I've seen or read about isn't to harrass women, because it's counterproductive. If you knew anything about PUA or were debating honestly, you would know this.

I certainly believe that harassment is NOT the goal/objective of PUA. As you say, that would be absurd and counterproductive. But in life, actions/behaviors VERY OFTEN have consequences that are not their goals and sometimes that are counterproductive to their goals. We (humans) are imperfectly effective. Duh.

The question here is whether or not at least *some* PUA is one of those behaviors, i.e., is harassment sometimes an *unintended* consequence of some types of PUA? We have probably reached yet another of those "agree to disagree" points, but fwiiw, my conclusion is that the answer to the question in bold font is yes.

-Ww

 

[Sinapse]

is harassment sometimes an *unintended* consequence of some types of PUA?

I would generally say yes to this statement, but I think that there's another layer that is missing. Namely, "harassment" itself is a subjective experience which is decided not categorically but by style, manner, and the guy doing the approaching. Lets look at a few examples

PUA newbie Fred has digested a lot of pickup material, including Mystery Method, RSD, and Roosh V. He comes to Japan with little to no knowledge of Japanese women or culture outside of anime, but has pretty good language ability. He approaches Sayaka, a 21year old hostess on the streets of kabukicho with an over the shoulder opinion opener before transitioning into a neg by calling her "ぽっちゃり” and doing some "kino".

The girl feel harassed.

Random Jdude Ryotaro has no knowledge of Western pickup but is just doing everything through trial and error. Still, he is very much a beginner. He approaches black-haired international student girl Aya who's fresh from a study abroad program in Melbourne, and doesn't particularly do or say anything wrong, yet she feels harassed.

Now if Fred approaches Aya, and Ryotaro approaches Sayaka, the outcomes might be very different, and maybe nobody feels harassed. On top of that, if much-improved nanpa-shi Fred learns to not touch girls, learns more about Japanese culture and how J women think and like to be approached, he could approach Sayaka again a year later and she might have a totally different subjective experience.

What I'm getting at, is "harassment" itself is a decision made not based specifically on the explicit behavior of talking to a girl on the street (or wherever), but based much more on style and who the person doing the approaching and being approached is. Interestingly, while nanpa has a negative connotation, very few women will be upset if the nanpa is very good. I've had a ton of pillow-side chats with girls that goes something like this:

Girl: "I hate nanpa, it's so annoying."
Sinapse: "Wait but I talked to you on the street. That's nanpa right?"
Girl: "No but that was different. It was just destiny / fate / being social"

I can never understand how they rationalize it away but they definitely do. In other words, to most girls "nanpa" means "Guy talking to me who I don't like" much like "creepy" means that in English. I think this is what Solong is getting at. Whether a girl thinks its nanpa / harassment or not is largely based on whether she liked it / the manner in which it was done / the guy who was doing it.

Another way of thinking it is if Brad Pitt approaches a girl on the street, she's almost never going to feel like it's harassment. She'd feel almost the opposite.. Like, "Why is he giving me some of his time, oh my god I'm so grateful / lucky!!"

Making the shift from the feeling that you are offering something rather than taking something in your interactions with girls is a HUGE mental shift that benefits all parties and makes your nanpa much more effective. In short, worrying if you are harassing a girl is not only not conducive to good nanpa, it actually might lead to her feeling more harassed than worrying constantly if she feels harassed (weird, right?). A weak / unsure approach is worse than a relaxed but confident approach.

Another way of thinking of this is, if you are a man who is working in all areas to improve your life (diet, language, career, fashion, lifestyle, hobbies, etc) you are a high value CATCH for a girl. As such, you shouldn't be worried about harassing a girl as long as your behavior is respectful.

Take for example, a homeless guy with an empty cup going up to everyone and asking for money. Some people might give him money, some might not and ignore him, some might feel offended that he even asked, and yes, "harassed." But if a guy is going around handing out 1000yen bills, nobody will feel harassed because he is giving value, not asking for it. This is the same mental sticking point guys have with sex where they believe (because our culture believes) that sex is something a woman gives to a man for good behavior or for waiting long enough or "proving his merit." We have to mentally shift to thinking that sex is something beautiful, shared, and that inherently is a non-transactional interaction. In short, nothing is "exchanged". Rather, like art, it is done for its own sake - to create something meaningful and share an experience together. This myth that the man is "winning" or "getting some" and the woman is "losing value" with sex is toxic and needs to go.

 

[DJV]

Girl: "I hate nanpa, it's so annoying."
Sinapse: "Wait but I talked to you on the street. That's nanpa right?"
Girl: "No but that was different. It was just destiny / fate / being social"
(...)
I can never understand how they rationalize it away but they definitely do

Brilliant.
Sorry for just quoting the dialog + one sentence, but this is honestly the very reason PUA works, with some time and effort.
PUA is about creating an alternate version of history, with you and girls ending in the same bed

On the positive side, it's fascinating to me.

 

[Solong]

Take for example, a homeless guy with an empty cup going up to everyone and asking for money. Some people might give him money, some might not and ignore him, some might feel offended that he even asked, and yes, "harassed." But if a guy is going around handing out 1000yen bills, nobody will feel harassed because he is giving value, not asking for it. This is the same mental sticking point guys have with sex where they believe (because our culture believes) that sex is something a woman gives to a man for good behavior or for waiting long enough or "proving his merit." We have to mentally shift to thinking that sex is something beautiful, shared, and that inherently is a non-transactional interaction. In short, nothing is "exchanged". Rather, like art, it is done for its own sake - to create something meaningful and share an experience together. This myth that the man is "winning" or "getting some" and the woman is "losing value" with sex is toxic and needs to go.

I think this is a good point. I explained it more as certain people claiming they were "harrassed", can be those types that are overly arrogant or with inflated egos.

You see this in offices and at the work place, where women claimed the "ugly" guy sexually harrassed them by asking them out . But if an "handsome" or who they like does the exact same behavior, it's acceptable and wanted.

With sexual harassment in the work place, most HRs and managers have developed ways to weed out valid versus false or exaggerated claims. This was important, because some people (often women), were using the claims as a weapon to extort money from companies.

Credible sexual harassment claims are defined as persistent unwanted sexual advances or comments, where the person has made it obvious they find them offensive and object to it. The key is the woman/person makes it clear the behavior is unwanted.

Simply approaching a woman (to include PUAs) and starting a conversation or asking a her out on a date is NOT sexual harassment or harassment. It's when she objects to it, and the guy persists, that then there is a problem. As a matter of legal precedent and widely followed policies, this is understood.

I also agree that viewing sex as a battle, in which if men get it then it's a "win", and if women "give it up" then it's a "loss" is extremely destructive. This is partly behind the "war of the sexes" and creates a lot of animosity between men and women. And it should be a point of emphasis, that women can have this negative thinking as much as men.

Unfortunately this thinking is so common, there is little a person can do to stop it, even if they think differently. You can only kind of go around it in most cases or change how you personally view things.

As a PUA, it's better to have the mindset of creating "win win" scenarios. That is, she is gaining by starting a relationship with you. And if you can express this indirectly or directly, it can often lead to greater success.

 

[Solong]

KINO VS Harrassment

Probably a point of confusion or controversy deals with physical interactions. When to or not to touch a woman?

To start an intimate or sexual relationship, you are going to have to touch the woman at some point and begin somewhere. For those that don't know PUA well or not at all, they can get themselves in trouble, by touching women they have just met in sexual areas of her body (breasts, behind, vagina, upper thigh), or get overly touchy way too soon. A PUA of any skill would not start there or in such a way.

Instead, many systems of PUA have touch escalation ladders (The DiCarlo Escalation Ladder is a famous and older one). Initially, a true PUA would NOT physically touch the woman at all. He would first start a conversation with her or start flirting from a distance (smile, wink, wave, etc...). He would then look for indicators of interest (IOI). http://www.pualingo.com/indicator-of-interest-ioi/

After seeing or hearing positive signs of interest from the woman, he might begin touch testing (KINO). But, this often depends on if he plans to escalate towards sex that night or a different night. If he simply wants to exchange contact information and meet another night, he may decide to not touch her at all on that day.

This is something those not familiar with PUA might not understand. Consequently, they might think a drunk guy running up to a startled woman and putting his arm around her neck is the epitome of PUA, when that's far from the truth. The drunk guy, creep, or molester can have nothing to do with PUA or Nampa whatsoever. That is just a nutty dude making himself a public nuisance.

A PUA of any decent level of training or reading, would not start touch testing until after getting positive signs of interest from the woman and after initiating a verbal conversation. He then would decide if where he is at is appropriate to touch test her (geographical escalation) or that he will try to get intimate that day. He might decide to wait on a planned date they made (a major sign she is interested) or proceed because she is clearly interested in him at that moment.

When he starts touch testing, it will be at non-sexual points. Briefly touch her hands to say look at her fingernails, do palm reading, or while moving her to a different location. The back of her elbow, the small of her back, or possibly an arm around her shoulder or back of the chair/couch behind her while seated. Involve her in activities that require touching, like dancing or perhaps teach her how to bowl or play billiards (physically correct her body positions)...

If at any point the woman rejects the physical interaction, he would politely back down and assess the situation. Was it a minor and playful rejection or is she uncomfortable? That is, continue talking to her verbally, looking at her body language and facial expressions. He proceeds based on her verbal interaction and body language.

PUA is partially about learning to be better at understanding people verbally, and reading their body language and facial expressions. A good PUA would be quicker than the average person at hearing or physically picking up true signs of discomfort and dislike. To include the reverse, what are signs of interest and comfort.

 

[Wwanderer]

is harassment sometimes an *unintended* consequence of some types of PUA?

I would generally say yes to this statement,

Yeah, it seems pretty clear that "yes" is the correct answer. The very fact that you so often hear stuff like this

I've had a ton of pillow-side chats with girls that goes something like this:

Girl: "I hate nanpa, it's so annoying."

is strong evidence that even women who are *sometimes* ok with being picked up on the street often have annoying experiences with guys who are trying to nampa/PUA them. And fwiiw, I have also heard many women say that they dislike PUA/nampa. It is definitely a common sentiment.

Very likely there are other women who are almost *never* ok with street pick-ups because it does not fit their image of themselves or how they relate to men, so for them it is always bothersome, whoever does it.

I emphasize "bothersome" and "annoying" above because these words seem to me to better capture what we are (or at least I am) talking about than some technical legal definition of "harass". It may be better/clearer to avoid the latter term altogether.

Sinapse: "Wait but I talked to you on the street. That's nanpa right?"
Girl: "No but that was different. It was just destiny / fate / being social"

I can never understand how they rationalize it away but they definitely do. In other words, to most girls "nanpa" means "Guy talking to me who I don't like" much like "creepy" means that in English. I think this is what Solong is getting at. Whether a girl thinks its nanpa / harassment or not is largely based on whether she liked it / the manner in which it was done / the guy who was doing it.

Another way of thinking it is if Brad Pitt approaches a girl on the street, she's almost never going to feel like it's harassment. She'd feel almost the opposite.. Like, "Why is he giving me some of his time, oh my god I'm so grateful / lucky!!"

I completely take this point and agree that what bothers a woman coming from one man would be welcome coming from another. I've seen this sort of thing many times, as have we all I imagine.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that the way *you personally* and *currently* do PUA is welcome, or at least not very unwelcome, to most women you approach. Right? You also imply that many PUA, perhaps including you (?), annoyed and bothered a lot of women with their approaches before getting enough training, experience, technique and even perhaps wisdom to "get it right". Do you think that is accurate?

That is of course the important question for you personally. I hope your opinion is correct. I'd think it would be hard to tell for sure though since (if I understand correctly), the large majority of the women you approach neither let you pick them up nor "panic and flee". (That phrase always makes me chuckle and think of an old school Godzilla movie with the population of Tokyo in a running and screaming horde fleeing the monster! Is there a "Godzilla style" PUA I wonder?) So it is hard to tell how the majority feel about your approaches.

To be honest and fair, I also know women who say that they enjoy and welcome PUA/nampa. So, the situation is hardly a clear one overall. It is a trade-off involved and a judgement call, and I do not criticize that. What I do criticize is denial that the downside of that trade-off even exists, i.e., denying that there is ever any harm at all in PUA/nampa...for example by denying the validity/reality of the feelings of women who dislike being cold approached etc.

-Ww

 

[Solong]

Yeah, it seems pretty clear that "yes" is the correct answer. The very fact that you so often hear stuff like this



is strong evidence that even women who are *sometimes* ok with being picked up on the street often have annoying experiences with guys who are trying to nampa/PUA them. And fwiiw, I have also heard many women say that they dislike PUA/nampa. It is definitely a common sentiment.

Very likely there are other women who are almost *never* ok with street pick-ups because it does not fit their image of themselves or how they relate to men, so for them it is always bothersome, whoever does it.

I emphasize "bothersome" and "annoying" above because these words seem to me to better capture what we are (or at least I am) talking about than some technical legal definition of "harass". It may be better/clearer to avoid the latter term altogether.



I completely take this point and agree that what bothers a woman coming from one man would be welcome coming from another. I've seen this sort of thing many times, as have we all I imagine.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that the way *you personally* and *currently* do PUA is welcome, or at least not very unwelcome, to most women you approach. Right? You also imply that many PUA, perhaps including you (?), annoyed and bothered a lot of women with their approaches before getting enough training, experience, technique and even perhaps wisdom to "get it right". Do you think that is accurate?

That is of course the important question for you personally. I hope your opinion is correct. I'd think it would be hard to tell for sure though since (if I understand correctly), the large majority of the women you approach neither let you pick them up nor "panic and flee". (That phrase always makes me chuckle and think of an old school Godzilla movie with the population of Tokyo in a running and screaming horde fleeing the monster! Is there a "Godzilla style" PUA I wonder?) So it is hard to tell how the majority feel about your approaches.

To be honest and fair, I also know women who say that they enjoy and welcome PUA/nampa. So, the situation is hardly a clear one overall. It is a trade-off involved and a judgement call, and I do not criticize that. What I do criticize is denial that the downside of that trade-off even exists, i.e., denying that there is ever any harm at all in PUA/nampa...for example by denying the validity/reality of the feelings of women who dislike being cold approached etc.

-Ww

Something that is very clear, is you don't know what a PUA is. Just because a random guy talks to a woman, does that mean he is a PUA? I will help you, no!

That also brings up PUA VS Nampa. In the Japanese case, they use it as a verb. Much like you are trying to do. That is any act of talking to a woman can be considered by some as "Nampa". This is actually foolish, and partially why Japan has some of the relationship problems that they do, with people isolating themselves. And that's another issue with your argument. So men are not allowed to talk to women?

This is where your argument, Ww, falls flat. Because claiming talking to women or asking them out on dates is "bad", because some women MIGHT be occasionally offended or are arrogant, is ridiculous. You should just come out with something else as ridiculous, like all men must pay for sex. Sorry Ww, but every guy (or woman) doesn't think sex must be an exchange for cash every time or that they must have an arranged marriage.

 

[Sinapse]

is strong evidence that even women who are *sometimes* ok with being picked up on the street often have annoying experiences with guys who are trying to nampa/PUA them.

I would say that women "
often have annoying experiences with guys "
Period. Don't really see much need to include nanpa/PUA as a qualifier. Much more stressful and bothersome would be the daily shit attractive women get from men they know, not strangers. Their boss sneaking a grab or making unwanted approaches in a situation they can't get away. Coworkers making sexual comments they just have to grin and bear it. On the scale of "bothersome behavior coming from men" a non-physical, non-aggressive approach in public hardly even moves the needle

You also imply that many PUA, perhaps including you (?), annoyed and bothered a lot of women with their approaches before getting enough training, experience, technique and even perhaps wisdom to "get it right". Do you think that is accurate?

Sure yeah I'm sure I've have slightly bothered women in the past. Actually I know this to be factually true. But not all bothering is created equal, and I'd put a respectful, non-physical approach on the level of perhaps dropping your phone on the ground, or a cold rain drop falling on your head.ultimately it might be a bit bothersome, but after about a minute you've already forgotten it happened. On the other hand, if you have a STRONG negative reaction that's likely indicative of a deeper issue. If you're raging at a raindrop, it's more about you than the raindrop.

On top of that the potential net good will generated is much higher. The amount of thanks I've received from women is pretty absurd. Last night I picked up a girl off the street and it came up in conversation that because of her like of work (Japanese traditional dance) that she meets few to no people her age and she wished someone would talk to her on the street. By the end of the night she was beaming in bed next to me.

So given that the overall net happiness effect of pickup is significantly more than the amount of "bother" it induces, I'm fine with it. I'm certainly not going to stop, and I hope that's not the logical endpoint of your train of thought - to shame guys into not talking to girls ^^

 

[Wwanderer]

On top of that the potential net good will generated is much higher. The amount of thanks I've received from women is pretty absurd. Last night I picked up a girl off the street and it came up in conversation that because of her like of work (Japanese traditional dance) that she meets few to no people her age and she wished someone would talk to her on the street. By the end of the night she was beaming in bed next to me.

So given that the overall net happiness effect of pickup is significantly more than the amount of "bother" it induces, I'm fine with it. I'm certainly not going to stop, and I hope that's not the logical endpoint of your train of thought - to shame guys into not talking to girls ^^

No indeed, I have no intention, zero, of shaming you or anyone else. At most, I'd hope to persuade PUAs to think or re-think or think more carefully about these issues we have been discussing. However, mostly I am just interested in considering them for their abstract intellectual interest and complexity. Moreover, I very much appreciate that you are willing and able to engage in such a discussion without getting defensive or peeved. You seem to get that we are just talking through a somewhat controversial issue. Thanks.

What I think of your personal decisions and actions re PUA matters not at all (I assume), but fwiiw, I have no quarrel with your general utilitarian line of reasoning, the greatest good for the greatest number etc. That's nice solid philosophical ground. I might not reach the same conclusions myself and might be (am actually) skeptical that you can evaluate that balance (of good against bad aspects) as well as you think you can, but these are matters on which reasonable people can disagree. In other words, I think I now understand your views on this much better than when we started; I hope that you also find my perspective clearer now.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

I would say that women "
often have annoying experiences with guys "
Period. Don't really see much need to include nanpa/PUA as a qualifier. Much more stressful and bothersome would be the daily shit attractive women get from men they know, not strangers. Their boss sneaking a grab or making unwanted approaches in a situation they can't get away. Coworkers making sexual comments they just have to grin and bear it. On the scale of "bothersome behavior coming from men" a non-physical, non-aggressive approach in public hardly even moves the needle

I am replying to this part of your post separately because while I appreciate the logical utilitarian argument which you made and which I quoted in my previous message, imo the part I quote here is a pretty bad form of rationalization that could be used to give oneself a pass on all sorts of things.

What you say is true enough, I suspect, but note that "the daily shit attractive women get from men they know, not strangers" is surely not as bad as the violent domestic abuse that some women (and some men too) experience from their mates and other family members. That domestic violence in turn is not as bad as the calculated genocidal acts to which large groups of people in some places are subject. And even these genocidal atrocities are arguably not as bad as the fate of the millions of very young children who annually suffer horribly and die in agony from hunger (in a world which produces enough food to feed them) and preventable diseases. Etc. You get the idea.

In other words, I think justifying doing something bad to another person because others do worse things seems to me a very dodgy and weak argument. So much so, that I wonder if you really meant it that way.

Better, much better I think, to stick to the utilitarian justifications.

-Ww

 

[Solong]

No indeed, I have no intention, zero, of shaming you or anyone else. At most, I'd hope to persuade PUAs to think or re-think or think more carefully about these issues we have been discussing.
-Ww

Ww, most true PUAs, that have done any significant level of study, would exactly be thinking about such to tailor their approach to get the best possible level of success. A PUA is a person who is studying pick up. Like a Martial Artist who studies various fighting styles. A PUA is studying the art of picking up women. Consequently, how women are reacting to him and/or his approach is of major importance.

This a point I hope you can come to understand more clearly. It is why Sinapse and my respones are very specifically able to address such an issue.

A PUA is different from somebody who is just trying to pick up women with no thought out method or plan. A person like that, who has no methodology or plan and is just haphazardly approaching women is NOT a PUA. This is likely a person who hasn't thought about, can be cluess how women are reacting, nor possibly doesn't care about how women react to them. A PUA is different from just a random smooth talker.

As mentioned, PUA and Nampa can actually mean 2 separate things. Japanese use Nampa as a verb. Nanpa suru. This is partially about the idiosyncrasies of the Japanese language, where nouns can more easily become verbs. Nanpashi or ナンパ師 would be somewhat closer to the Western meaning of PUA.

But the Japanese use the term, nanpa suru, more as we use "smooth talker" it's a connotation and meaning without emphasis on the organized art and technique of pickup. ANYBODY can be a "smooth talker". Furthermore, the Japanese connotation and meaning puts nanpa closer to hustler or conman.

In the Japanese context, we are coming from a culture with a long history of arranged marriages and arranged dates. Dating and marriage being more closely aligned with business negotiations. Consequently, men and women simply talking to each other outside of an arranged context is newer for Japanese culture.

Fear of failure, rejection, or embarrassment are arguably stronger in Japanese culture than many Western cultures. So the concept of approaching or having a conversation with new people or strangers (even outside the PUA/Nampa context) is a bit more terrifying for the men or surprising for women. It's not necessarily a problem, but more of it being something unusual or new for them. It's best to separate this reaction from annoying. Surprised that a stranger talked to you isn't necessarily the same as being annoyed or feeling harrassed about it.

Japanese traditionalist can see Nampa with derision. Young people doing something in a non-traditional way and women having free choice, can be a problem for more backwards minded Japanese stuck in traditionalism. The common Western view doesn't have this, and has long ago culturally switched over to women and men freely talking and choosing each other.

However, there is the Western context of PUA as a marketing "trick" or as a threat (certain groups of feminists). You have sensationalized media stories or femistists upset that men might equal the playing field in the sexual landscape. Here, this is often coming from ignorance, of those that don't know what PUA is or have an agenda against men. PUA is simply a collection of techniques and methodologies, much of which is freely available. It's also a matter of choice to pay for material or coaching, for those men that feel they need it.

Anyway, a PUA would be very mindful of how women are reacting to him. It's what he has studied to do. And it should never be a problem for men and women to politely approach and publicly talk with each other in a free modern society.

 

[TAG Manager]

I think it encourages attacking the person and not debating the topic, sly insults, and derailing of the topics. This keeps happening over and over; it has become predictable. Apparently, when certain people disagree with a thread or person, they try to troll or degrade the thread into mudslinging so it gets locked. I or others could just troll people, but I thought the point of TAG is discussion.

And I think people take themselves way too seriously.

 

[Solong]

And I think people take themselves way too seriously.

It's not that I don't have a sense of humor, but more of a pattern of behavior that has repeatedly derailed or resulted in mudslinging on non-monger threads.

Sorry, I was just thinking it would be nice to debate or focus on the topic.

 

[TAG Manager]

It's not that I don't have a sense of humor, but more of a pattern of behavior that has repeatedly derailed or resulted in mudslinging on non-monger threads.

Sorry, I was just thinking it would be nice to debate or focus on the topic.

I get your point, but if you have any issue with some posts or other member, please use the report function and tell us about it. Any valid concern will be addressed professionally. In retrospect, guess I should really have another account here so I can take off the 'admin hat' and just be one in the crowd. Awkward... maybe....

 

[Sinapse]

"the daily shit attractive women get from men they know, not strangers" is surely not as bad as the violent domestic abuse that some women (and some men too) experience from their mates and other family members. That domestic violence in turn is not as bad as the calculated genocidal acts to which large groups of people in some places are subject. And even these genocidal atrocities are arguably not as bad as the fate of the millions of very young children who annually suffer horribly and die in agony from hunger (in a world which produces enough food to feed them) and preventable diseases.

justifying doing something bad to another person because others do worse things seems to me a very dodgy and weak argument. So much so, that I wonder if you really meant it that way.

You are right that I did not mean it simply that "People do worse things therefore this is okay."

I meant it rather that most men have a desire (I would even call it a basic need) to express themselves physically and strive towards sex and love. Given that, and the frustrations of living in a society where the process to get a girlfriend isn't entirely apparent to all members of the male society, there are better and worse ways that that need and desire comes out. If guys aren't getting all their sexual energies out in consensual, normal channels, they will then come out in creepy, harassing, power-oriented, or violent and dark channels.

I'm talking about what happens when guys don't get laid, and either slip into other troublesome behavior or "snap" and do something really horrible.

One reason I support prostitution and think it should be legalized is that men need a healthy and acceptable way to release their sexual tension. In Japan you get a lot of chikan, tousatsu (taking sneak pictures), and sekuhara / powerhara in the workplace. This of course isn't exclusive to Japan, but it is a notable presence here. This is what happens when guys walk around, see beautiful women everywhere, and don't know how to get them in a normal way (i.e. going up to them, talking to them normally and person-to-person rather than objectifying or mystifying women, getting them out on a consensual date, and sleeping with them), they try to use covert or power-based means to non-consensually get sexual /physical with women.

On the extreme end of the spectrum you have Eliott Rodger. For those who don't remember or didn't hear, he was a rich kid in the US who thought he deserved sex from beautiful women just for being born, wearing nice clothes, having a nice car, and being traditionally attractive. In other words, everything society says "gets chicks". He didn't get laid, snapped, and went into a sorority, and killed a bunch of people.

Interestingly, he was a very active member of a forum called "PUAhate" ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/30/elliot-rodger-puahate-forever-alone-reddit-forums) , which is a platform for everyone who wants to talk about how PUA is a scam, all instructors are snake oil salesmen, that only looks, status, race, and money matter, and that there is no such thing as "learnable game". Actually, some people responding to these PUA threads on this site seem like they might be at home on PUAhate. If you are still interested in such a thing, you can check out a similar forum at http://sluthate.com/

If you can spend 20 minutes on that site without losing faith in humanity and having your eyes bleed, I'll personally buy you a beer.

If you think PUAs are bad, these guys are 100x worse. Guys in these communities often identify as "incels" which means involuntary celibate, or basically "girls won't sleep with me and its THEIR fault". These guys don't take personal responsibility for their own actions and have the "fixed mindset" I talked about earlier on this board. They believe that they can't change their situation. If you believe that you can't change anything, then you look around and like Elliott Rodger, you have all the "traditional indicators of status" and are a young, attractive, white male, yet can't get laid, you start to get really frustrated because you think either everything society has taught you is wrong or that women are to blame. I'm not saying everyone who doesn't get laid will end up killing people, but it is a real danger. Realize that when you criticize PUA in its entirety without allowing for complexity or nuance, these guys are the company you find yourself in.

I find it funny when feminists are against PUA. Good PUA is actually good for society AND women. Good PUA encourages men to self-actualize, stay on their purpose, go to the gym, eat healthy, read books, succeed in their career, and interact with women as humans rather than objects. On top of that, much like prostitution, it gives men a way to get their frustrations and need for sexual expression out in a healthy manner. And yes, there are some "bad apples" in PUA who use their platforms to hate on women or promote harassing behavior. But it is precisely because of those guys and guys like Elliott Rodger than there is an important space for good PUA, or whatever you'd like to call it. If someone comes along and is teaching guys how to get better at all of this in a respectful manner, I think they should be embraced rather than frowned on.

All I'd like is for people to have a nuanced view of it. Yes, there can be downsides. Yes, it does take a huge amount of time to improve your life, personality, and skill with women. Yes, anyone can do it. Yes, it does have huge benefits if you stick with it. No, you aren't any less valuable as a human being if you choose not to do it.

Alright, soap box rant over

 

[Mr Cat]

My question to ww is: if you don't talk to girls in the street, how do you get to know new people or date as a foreigner in Japan with limited to no acquaintance ? Is talking to girls in bars better?

I am asking not sarcastically but because I really want your thoughts on the matter.

Since I've been in Japan I've met many women in various ways, but the only 2 girls I have been with on a long-term relationship I both found them randomly in the street (I'll spare the details)

Please underline the "as a foreigner in Japan", as it implies that you have less friends /network than in your hometown to introduce new people to you on a weekly basis