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

[Solong]

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"...

I had read about Eliott Rodger and mentioned him here, but didn't realize how far gone he was. Many guys are heavily under the false assumption that women will reward them with sex for "good behavior" or based on how "cute" they are without the man being proactive in any way. My interpretation of this misguided behavior and thinking, is socially effeminized males assuming female roles or behavior will work for them too. They mistakenly buy into theories that the sexes are the same, as if there aren't differences, or that men can do whatever women do. This is a lack of understanding of basic biology and masculinity.

It's also a trick of modern feminism, because they know women have certain inherent advantages over men that they can exploit. Access to sex or attaining money or resources by offering sex are some advantages women hold over men, and an always viable "plan B". So even when pretending to fight for equality by getting special legal privileges, they know women will "win" because they always have a "trump card". Sex!

A woman can setup a "honeypot" or "honey-trap", because male testosterone wires men's brains to seek out women and increases urges for sex. This even holds true, if women are artificially and repeatedly given testosterone injections. The higher his testosterone levels, the more likely he will have stronger urges and seek out women, and the more his brain has been changed for such behavior.

Many women (especially younger or prettier) can afford to wait for males to solicit and make offers, for sex or starting relationships. She can often increase or filter the number of males approaching her based on making herself more sexually appealing (makeup, hair, fashion, etc...) or based on how physically fit or curvy she is.

This strategy, however, doesn't work so well for men. A more masculine, muscular, or bigger male tends to intimidate females. They tend to fear him, more or as much as they are sexually attracted to him. A more effeminate, cute, weak, or smaller male tends to equally repel women or be seen as undesirable because of his lower status among other males, not physically fit, inability to protect her, or failure to satisfy any masochistic/submissive traits the woman might have. This is easily seen with primates and many mammals. We are dealing with millions of years of biological programming.

Consequently, there are a lot of men who are extremely sexually frustrated or unhappy, because they are not getting their needs met. And the more they attempt to use what are considered socially acceptable or effeminate methods, including groveling or even trying to be submissive to women, the more it often fails. Women are usually not reciprocating the favors or rewarding it with sex. So some men can take it as rejection of him as a person or his manhood. There are different coping mechanism: rage, violence, rape, buying women, withdrawing from talking to women (like a hermit), etc... None of these are usually socially acceptable nor do they alleviate the pain of rejection.

Men often don't have as many options to get what they want or what will satisfy their needs as women do, and some men like Eliott Rodger turn their frustration and rejection into violence. Young men like Eliott, never learned alternative paths or let their warped pride and views on the social sexual dynamic between men and women blind them to viable alternatives.

 

[DJV]

You have some good points @Solong, though I'm not sure about "buying women" as a consequence of frustration.
I'm sure it's a common use case but as I see it today, p4p is even better to prevent frustration, create temporary playfields and optimize your own time.
I also consider that PUA is also technically "buying" girls, only using any other kind of currencies and tokens than plain money.

When I was a lot younger and sometimes in a really dark place thinking about single women, I had a theory :
I thought that women lived in some kind of absurd comedy with one unspoken purpose : be picked up by the first confident prick that feed them pretty lies and wake their primal instincts well hidden behind a sad social formatting.
Of course that was way before, and I apologize for the crude terms. It took me a very very long road to put this in perspective, even if (a few) girls I've known voluntarily admit relating to this kind of life.
There is certainly some PUA (and mostly other business-oriented social skills) in my today's approach with girls, and it's way more successfull.

Anyway now that I read all these threads about PUA, I guess there's nothing wrong with applying some utilitarian theory and that they are, like P4P, "providers" and "clients" for it.
Approaching a girl in the street can certainly bother (or bore) her, but harrassing is a strong word that might be exxagerated in this context, especially when PUA is about binding and not coercing.

 

[DJV]

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/

I don't think so, it's really 2 different things to question PUA or to go extreme by denying or hating it (or go to a dedidated haters web site).

I think it's ok to have diverging opinions in a specialized thread, be it on the P4P or nP4P section of the forum.

 

[Solong]

You have some good points @Solong, though I'm not sure about "buying women" as a consequence of frustration.
I'm sure it's a common use case but as I see it today, p4p is even better to prevent frustration, create temporary playfields and optimize your own time.
I also consider that PUA is also technically "buying" girls, only using any other kind of currencies and tokens than plain money.

When I was a lot younger and sometimes in a really dark place thinking about single women, I had a theory :
I thought that women lived in some kind of absurd comedy with one unspoken purpose : be picked up by the first confident prick that feed them pretty lies and wake their primal instincts well hidden behind a sad social formatting.
Of course that was way before, and I apologize for the crude terms. It took me a very very long road to put this in perspective, even if (a few) girls I've known voluntarily admit relating to this kind of life.
There is certainly some PUA (and mostly other business-oriented social skills) in my today's approach with girls, and it's way more successfull.

Anyway now that I read all these threads about PUA, I guess there's nothing wrong with applying some utilitarian theory and that they are, like P4P, "providers" and "clients" for it.
Approaching a girl in the street can certainly bother (or bore) her, but harrassing is a strong word that might be exxagerated in this context, especially when PUA is about binding and not coercing.

Stating buying women as a way to prevent frustration or stating it as buying women because of frustration is similar. In both ways of expressing this, the men are dealing with sexual frustration, and are buying women to prevent or alleviate it.

In terms of time optimization, this is one of the arguments that I agree is a plus for P4P, but only provided that the man finds such interactions as satisfactory. In most cases, men are going to "pay" when dealing with women in one way or another. Either in money, time, or both. P4P = money, PUA/NP4P= time. I never fault a man, no matter which option he chooses, only that he should understand the options he has and not unnecessarily limit his options.

I thought that women lived in some kind of absurd comedy with one unspoken purpose : be picked up by the first confident prick that feed them pretty lies and wake their primal instincts well hidden behind a sad social formatting.

Actually, in many cases that's correct. Many women are much more "primed for sex" than they think or society is comfortable admitting to (women are innately sexually stronger), but it's hidden under layers of social programming, rules, fears, and childishly unrealistic Cinderella type fantasies. One of the main tools of PUA is seduction. This often gets lost on people who are simply reacting to negative media against PUA. Sexual seduction by men, is actually seen as a threat by many diverse groups with sex negative or arguably anti-heterosexual agendas. Even many PUA newbies just getting into it, don't understand the importance of seduction yet. PUA is partially about awakening or reading woman's more primal sexual instincts and desires, through various verbal and visual signals. Men and women are already wired for this, but women are usually naturally better at such games.

The problem is that many men don't know how to sexually seduce women, in the social situations we now are often in. In fact, many guys are not even consciously aware of the seduction process, but simply think in terms of their own selfish sexual desire. "I want to fuck her or I want her to be my woman." Worse, through religions and negative socially programming, can even feel bad or ashamed about their own natural sexual desires. Often being very oblivious to how to foster desire in women, so that she wants him sexually or recognize when she is ready for sex, instead of her just seeing him as a cash ATM or tool.

Many guys think they can seduce women by simply having money, throwing money at women, groveling/begging, socially shaming or blackmailing, or even being cute like a woman. All that often happens is the woman takes his money, abuses his interest to use him as a non-sexual tool for her purposes, or ignores him. PUA came into the picture as a solution to a problem common to many confused and unsatisfied modern men. The rules of seduction, attraction, and relationships have changed. Men were increasing at the disadvantage, and looking for fair ways to figure out how to get what they want. So now, we have many structured methods at aiding to seduce women or recognize sexual interest in women, without the man being abused. More men are now consciously and logically becoming aware of all phases of the sexual seduction process, helping to level the playing field against the many advantages women naturally have.

 

[Wwanderer]

Just because a random guy talks to a woman, does that mean he is a PUA?

No, nor did I ever say that. But if a "random guy" *systematically* and *frequently/routinely* tries to start conversations with women who are complete strangers in public places with the explicit goal of getting a date (or sex) with them, then I would call it (being a) PUA. Moreover I think that most people would; I think that is the common understanding of the term.

I do note that you prefer to use a more restrictive definition of PUA, one which seems designed to exclude many possible criticisms. Perhaps we need a new term, such as FPUA, where the "F" is for "failed" to denote guys whose attempts to pick-up women "cold" are not up to your standards (or @Sinapse's) of what constitutes true/correct PUA. Again, it all seems like semantics to me...fails to address the topic.

So men are not allowed to talk to women?

Of course they are, and I have said *zero* about anyone not being *allowed* to do anything. And you complain about me distorting or trying to derail the discussion?! Where did this "allowed" issue come from?

claiming talking to women or asking them out on dates is "bad", because some women MIGHT be occasionally offended or are arrogant, is ridiculous.

Indeed it is, and of course, I have said no such thing. If I have, please point it out so that I may apologize. All I said that *some* ways of "talking to women or asking them out on dates" has *downsides*...which is not even remotely the same as saying that *any* way of doing so is *bad*. Again I am wondering who is actually distorting and derailing here.

I would dispute your use of "MIGHT" and "occasionally" in the above quote. As both @Sinapse's and my experience indicate, it is not uncommon to hear women complain about (what they call) PUA. So, unless we think they are lying about being bothered by it, there is no "MIGHT" involved, and it certainly isn't that rare. There are even websites (I'm told) where women complain about it to each other. Of course maybe this is FPUA, not true PUA...but whatever.

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.

Again something I of course don't think and never said (and again please point it out if I did). There's virtually nothing that I believe *every* man or woman thinks on almost any topic. <sigh>

@Solong - We have had many debates in the past and often disagreed...but generally with respect for each other's reasoning, opinions. From my perspective, this one is somehow hitting you differently. You appear to be immensely irritated that my opinion differs from yours. In the one the brief post I quoted here, you attribute four different absurd and improbable thoughts to me that I never expressed and don't believe. Although it is notoriously hard to read tone online, you sure sound like you are angry and feel attacked or criticized. It is not for me to tell you why, but you might want to think about it. After all, what does it matter what I think...especially if my opinions are "ridiculous"; if so, no one is likely to pay attention to them anyway, Right?

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

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.

Good! That makes sense of course and is not really news to me. Also good that you are talking to me and explaining your understanding of the topic, rather than attributing wildly nutty views to me. Perhaps you cooled off a bit?

I note mainly your use of the term "*true* PUA" to mean one who has "done any significant level of study". Again, it seems to me that you are defining the term differently than it is commonly used, but that's ok as long as we are clear about it. In particular, when you proceed to say:

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.

It makes me think we need a term like the FPUA one I suggested in my just previous post. In your favorite analogy, perhaps it is like the difference between just a "(street) fighter" and a martial artist. They are different things, and it is hard to talk about them clearly if we have only one term for both, and different people define it differently.

Btw, the street brawling analogy gives the impression that the process of meeting and sometimes seducing women is very adversarial...is somehow like a fight or contest or struggle. For that reason, I don't particularly care for it. I'd prefer, say, an analogy to dancing. You can study it and train for it and become an expert at it (in many different styles...tango, salsa etc) or you can just get out there on the floor and let the music move your body. And in my analogy, I would cast my critique of PUA *not* as saying that one is "bad" and the other is "good" but rather as pointing out that both have pros and cons and that it is *possible*, easier and perhaps even more fun (for many people) to have a great time dancing and to please one's dance partners without making such a big, intense, stressful and consciously controlled deal out of the whole thing. Just get out there and jump around, stop fretting and have some simple minded fun. This works too, on the dance floor and for meeting women, in my long and not inconsiderable experience. But again to be clear, I have *zero* intent to deny anyone the option of spending years of intense effort (and perhaps a lot of money) mastering the Argentine Tango or PUA skills.

I put the above in italics because I think it may express my point of view in this discussion better than my previous attempts to do so.

the idiosyncrasies of the Japanese language, where nouns can more easily become verbs.

No worries with me understanding that. I speak NASAese, a language in which one can verb nouns quite freely.

Surprised that a stranger talked to you isn't necessarily the same as being annoyed or feeling harassed about it.

Right, but sometimes it is...or at least so some women say. And certainly the ones who "panic and flee" appear to be more than just surprised, even if it is irrational. The judgement call is what to do with that fact. @Sinapse's answer is a utilitarian one...very reasonable and rational imo. But despite all of our discussion, I remain unclear on your answer/judgement.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

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

Good!

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.

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.

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.

I think, would like to believe, that there was much more and more deeply wrong with Elliott Rodger than simply an extreme case of social and sexual frustration! If we understood what makes a (very few) people "snap" in that manner under pressure (of various sorts), we would be much better off as a society surely. But this is a largely irrelevant tangent. I don't think either PUA or p4p will protect us for the sociopaths of the world.

Otherwise I'm completely happy with what you say in this post. It is indeed a "nuanced view".

And, btw, enthusiasts of the Argentine Tango (see the italics portion of my just previous post if that reference isn't clear) also report huge benefits for one's overall life on and off the dance floor from devoting themselves to its study. There are many paths...and choosing the right one for oneself is best done by comparing options along with the pros and cons they each have, imo.

-Ww

 

[Solong]

No, nor did I ever say that. But if a "random guy" *systematically* and *frequently/routinely* tries to start conversations with women who are complete strangers in public places with the explicit goal of getting a date (or sex) with them, then I would call it (being a) PUA. Moreover I think that most people would; I think that is the common understanding of the term.

I do note that you prefer to use a more restrictive definition of PUA, one which seems designed to exclude many possible criticisms. Perhaps we need a new term, such as FPUA, where the "F" is for "failed" to denote guys whose attempts to pick-up women "cold" are not up to your standards (or @Sinapse's) of what constitutes true/correct PUA. Again, it all seems like semantics to me...fails to address the topic.

I would dispute your use of "MIGHT" and "occasionally" in the above quote. As both @Sinapse's and my experience indicate, it is not uncommon to hear women complain about (what they call) PUA. So, unless we think they are lying about being bothered by it, there is no "MIGHT" involved, and it certainly isn't that rare. There are even websites (I'm told) where women complain about it to each other. Of course maybe this is FPUA, not true PUA...but whatever.

@Solong - We have had many debates in the past and often disagreed...but generally with respect for each other's reasoning, opinions. From my perspective, this one is somehow hitting you differently. You appear to be immensely irritated that my opinion differs from yours. In the one the brief post I quoted here, you attribute four different absurd and improbable thoughts to me that I never expressed and don't believe. Although it is notoriously hard to read tone online, you sure sound like you are angry and feel attacked or criticized. It is not for me to tell you why, but you might want to think about it. After all, what does it matter what I think...especially if my opinions are "ridiculous"; if so, no one is likely to pay attention to them anyway, Right?

-Ww

I don't think the definition of what a PUA is, is merely a semantic issue. For instance, it appears you would include the famous scenario of a construction whistling at and using rude language towards women walking by, as a "certified" PUA. "Hey baby, you gotta cute ass and some big watermelons. Know what I mean? Hehehehe..." Ww, that crap isn't PUA. Most PUAs would vehemently object to that characterization.

A PUA is a guy who significantly spent time studying material on how to pick up women, took a PUA course, or have received coaching from other PUAs. In PUA terminology, non-PUAs trying to pickup women are described by such terms as AFC (Average Fucking Chump) or Naturals (untrained but good at pickup).

Labeling random assholes, like in my example of the famous rude construction worker, as PUAs can be considered a smear job done by certain elements of the media and feminists groups that have an agenda.

Before I ever knew anything about PUAs, I was trying to pick up women. I never thought to define myself or my friends as a PUA or what I was doing as PUA. It was just "smooth talk" and trying to get laid. There wasn't any comprehensive system or often not even any plan. Somebody labeling me a PUA at the point would have been a joke.

And many women don't know what a PUA is. If they are harassed or being annoyed by a guy, they usually simply label him an asshole.

However, in the Japanese context, it's different because nanpa can be a verb. Any attempt by a man to approach or talk to women can be lazily labeled nanpa. In Japanese "He tried to talk to me." = Nanpa suru. So to me, it's like you are viewing this as if a Japanese person, or merging Nampa and PUA as exactly equivalent terms regards of language or culture.

I'm not angry, nor do I get so, because it's only an Internet debate and mental exercise in my opinion. The reason why I'm coming at you a bit hard in this case, is the definition issues intrigue me. In addition to merging PUA and Nampa as the same, there is the perception of merging "approaching" and "harassment" as about the same. I find it amazing that politely approaching a woman, can be so arbitrarily defined or agreed to be harassment by people of reason and logic. It's like if a person merged "consenual sex" and "rape" or "loan" and "theft" as being the same whenever they feel like it.

 

[Wwanderer]

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

This is a totally reasonable and fair question imo. It probably deserves its own thread (if it doesn't already have one) in the Dating and Relationships forum since it isn't really about PUA or nampa; it is explicitly about alternatives to them. Perhaps you/we/I should start one.

For this thread, maybe it is sufficient to say that there surely are many alternatives. To see this ask people you know who are in long-term and otherwise good/happy relationships how they first met (if you don't already know). Most people love telling their "how I met him/her" story anyway. I think you will find very few who met via a cold pick-up on the street or in some other public place. Personally I know of only one such (married, gaijin-Japanese) couple in Tokyo, off the top of my head. The answers you will get are likely to vary all over the map I'd guess, but I don't consider myself an expert on the topic...waaaay out of my age range for one thing. Anecdotally, my impression is that meeting online is very very common these days for serious couples, not so much Tinder (which is quite close to street pick-ups as I understand it) but more like OKCupid and eHarmony and such. Being introduced by mutual friends is definitely super common as is meeting via some shared activity. I read somewhere that a remarkable number of young couples met after 3/11 when they volunteered to be bused to Tohoku to help the people there recover from the effects of the earthquake and tsunami. Apparently cleaning out a clogged drainage ditch with a hand shovel all day in the hot sun can be a very bonding experience! Who knew?

But to your initial question, my answer is yes. It seems to me to be common sense and obvious that going to a place, in real life or online, where women interested in meeting men gather for that exact purpose is a better tactic than approaching women going about their everyday lives. They may already be in a committed relationship or they may be intent on doing something unrelated to dating (work, dealing with family problems) or they may be meeting someone any moment etc. Not rocket science!

Btw, if you want to know how couples are meeting in the US, you can find a lot of stats by googling something like "how couples met statistics"; here are few random example links (I have only scanned them briefly):

http://mic.com/articles/112062/the-...icant-others-is-not-what-you-think#.96TljwiTk

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303325204579463272000371990

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...s-start-online-dating-study-article-1.1362743

I'd bet the stats aren't vastly different for Japan or even for gaijin-Japanese couples. But if you/one can google in Japanese maybe you can find more directly relevant information.

-Ww

 

[Solong]

This is a totally reasonable and fair question imo. It probably deserves its own thread (if it doesn't already have one) in the Dating and Relationships forum since it isn't really about PUA or nampa; it is explicitly about alternatives to them. Perhaps you/we/I should start one.

For this thread, maybe it is sufficient to say that there surely are many alternatives. To see this ask people you know who are in long-term and otherwise good/happy relationships how they first met (if you don't already know). Most people love telling their "how I met him/her" story anyway. I think you will find very few who met via a cold pick-up on the street or in some other public place. Personally I know of only one such (married, gaijin-Japanese) couple in Tokyo, off the top of my head. The answers you will get are likely to vary all over the map I'd guess, but I don't consider myself an expert on the topic...waaaay out of my age range for one thing. Anecdotally, my impression is that meeting online is very very common these days for serious couples, not so much Tinder (which is quite close to street pick-ups as I understand it) but more like OKCupid and eHarmony and such. Being introduced by mutual friends is definitely super common as is meeting via some shared activity. I read somewhere that a remarkable number of young couples met after 3/11 when they volunteered to be bused to Tohoku to help the people there recover from the effects of the earthquake and tsunami. Apparently cleaning out a clogged drainage ditch with a hand shovel all day in the hot sun can be a very bonding experience! Who knew?

But to your initial question, my answer is yes. It seems to me to be common sense and obvious that going to a place, in real life or online, where women interested in meeting men gather for that exact purpose is a better tactic than approaching women going about their everyday lives. They may already be in a committed relationship or they may be intent on doing something unrelated to dating (work, dealing with family problems) or they may be meeting someone any moment etc. Not rocket science!

Btw, if you want to know how couples are meeting in the US, you can find a lot of stats by googling something like "how couples met statistics"; here are few random example links (I have only scanned them briefly):

http://mic.com/articles/112062/the-...icant-others-is-not-what-you-think#.96TljwiTk

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303325204579463272000371990

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...s-start-online-dating-study-article-1.1362743

I'd bet the stats aren't vastly different for Japan or even for gaijin-Japanese couples. But if you/one can google in Japanese maybe you can find more directly relevant information.

-Ww

I wanted to add a few things here.

1) Many reports showing 25% to 35% of couples in America and some other Western countries are meeting online.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryma...e-more-satisfied-and-less-likely-to-split-up/
(One of many such reports)

2) PUA heavily deals with online dating.

There are branches of PUA, where that's it's specialty. In addition, PUA helps with more successful 1st and 2nd date outcomes, and message exchanges.

As for myself, I get a significant number of dates from online at 25% to 35%. Many of my "plan B" dates are from this route. However, I tend to focus more on live pickup, because there is more clarity that you are physically compatible and less negative surprises.

3) People lying about how they met.

For instance, if a couple met: online, at a club/bar, or street pickup then there is still some stigma or embarrassment to it that they can lie about it.

It has happened to my dates and I, as well as friends on numerous occasions. We would say that we met at a social gathering. A good friend of mine would even tell people he met his wife at church (he's actually agnostic), even though they met at a bar in Roppongi. It was a long running joke of his, but has a real social purpose of providing "acceptable cover".

 

[Wwanderer]

I don't think the definition of what a PUA is, is merely a semantic issue. For instance, it appears you would include the famous scenario of a construction whistling at and using rude language towards women walking by, as a "certified" PUA. "Hey baby, you gotta cute ass and some big watermelons. Know what I mean? Hehehehe..." Ww, that crap isn't PUA. Most PUAs would vehemently object to that characterization.

No, I definitely wouldn't call a stereotypical construction worker catcaller a PUA and don't think many people would either. If you want to focus on the semantics/definitions, I already gave mine:

if a "random guy" *systematically* and *frequently/routinely* tries to start conversations with women who are complete strangers in public places with the explicit goal of getting a date (or sex) with them, then I would call it (being a) PUA.

and I think that it corresponds to what most people (though maybe not most self-identified PUAs) mean by the term.

The stereotypical construction worker catcaller does not fit this definition because he is not trying to get dates or sex from the women he shouts at as they pass by. He is actually trying to bother or harass them and considers it a "win" if he gets any sort of reaction from the passing hottie, the more negative the better in his mind typically. It is a form of misogyny and a crude attempt to exercise gender dominance. He is essentially crowing (mostly to his co-workers I suspect) that he can get away with treating sexy women with contempt and disrespect. If one of these passing women were to respond positively and offer her phone number or something like that (surely very rare if it ever happened at all), the guy would probably be so astonished that he would fall off the steel beam on which we was perched. Or maybe he would panic and flee! Anyway, that is surely not the sort of situation I have in mind when I think of PUA, not at all.

This, however, I (and many/most people I suspect) probably would include in what I mean by PUA:

Before I ever knew anything about PUAs, I was trying to pick up women. I never thought to define myself or my friends as a PUA or what I was doing as PUA. It was just "smooth talk" and trying to get laid. There wasn't any comprehensive system or often not even any plan. Somebody labeling me a PUA at the point would have been a joke.

But I get that you don't use the term that way. Again, no problem. We just have to be clear about what we mean.

Another similar semantic/definition issue, and one more directly related to the OP of this thread, is that of "approach". For you it seems to imply a courteous, sensitive and respectful initiation of contact/conversation. I use the word more generally and would still describe initiation of contact/communication as an "approach" even if it were rude, insensitive and disrespectful. It could be either in other words.

I'm not angry, nor do I get so, because it's only an Internet debate and mental exercise in my opinion..

Good. Then we are on the same page on the matter.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

About "how couples meet", a few more comments from me as well:

It is worth noting that many of the (increasingly common, as @Solong notes) relationships that begin online do so other than via dating websites/apps. Couples encounter each other while participating in some online community that has some completely different focus. This has happened even for an old guy like me. I have never met anyone via a conventional online dating service (as far as I can remember), but I have met women online in other ways a few times.

As an anecdotal tangent, a few years ago and in a professional context I met a (quite beautiful) young (30-something) Chinese woman who was living as an expat in London. She mentioned that she was engaged and quite busy planning her wedding etc. In the course of our conversation I asked how she had met her fiancé, and she said online via eHarmony (or some other such online dating service). I asked her how common she thought meeting online was, and after a few moments thought, she surprised me by saying that she couldn't think of *any* couple, married or "serious", among her friends in her generation that had not met online! I mention the fact that she was an asian expat living in London because that makes her situation perhaps a little more analogous to that of a western expat living in Tokyo.

Re people lying about how they met, that is indeed surely common. Probably people lie somewhat less in anonymous surveys than they do to family and friends, but still it is a major uncertainty in the data, and all the numbers should probably be regarded as just a rough indication of reality and not some precise quantitative measurement.

In any case, my conclusion from all of this (in the context of @Mr Cat's question) is that one need not take up the practice of "cold approaching" women in order to have a happy/active social life if you prefer not to do so (for whatever reason); there are lots of other good options that work just fine for many/most folks. But surely that is hardly news or controversial.

-Ww

 

[Solong]

About "how couples meet", a few more comments from me as well:

It is worth noting that many of the (increasingly common, as @Solong notes) relationships that begin online do so other than via dating websites/apps. Couples encounter each other while participating in some online community that has some completely different focus. This has happened even for an old guy like me. I have never met anyone via a conventional online dating service (as far as I can remember), but I have met women online in other ways a few times.

In any case, my conclusion from all of this (in the context of @Mr Cat's question) is that one need not take up the practice of "cold approaching" women in order to have a happy/active social life if you prefer not to do so (for whatever reason); there are lots of other good options that work just fine for many/most folks. But surely that is hardly news or controversial.

-Ww

What's Not PUA

About the classic rude construction worker, we are in agreement, about what is not PUA. The purpose of such behavior is to harass women for his personal entertainment, or to include his pals. In fact, it is similar to female cock teasing, when among a woman and her girlfriends. The more shocked or the more they can get a reaction, the more fun they can have.

Online

Online dating isn't really specific to sites dedicated for the purpose. If a guy meets women from Facebook, Tagged, Language Partner, Pen Pals, Classified Ads, Travel guides, Blogs, etc... It is actually all included as part of online dating, even if the guy or woman is going a non-pay, non-traditional, or non-standard route.

Proper Way To Meet

Hmmm... There is something else, and in regards to Mr Cat. I don't think you answered his question.

What do you think or could you make a list of what is the "proper context" in which a guy should meet a woman?

It seems you object to strangers introducing themselves, which would leave having to be introduced through an intermediary (person or social media) . In PUA, it's called social circles. By the way, there are systems of PUA that specialize in this.

The negative in this way, social circles, is not meeting people that you actually want (because they are not in your circles) and not being able to meet different type of people (because everyone in the circle is too similar).

In addition, the need for some type of intermediary, can arguably reflect cowardice. This is, you see someone you like, but are too afraid to talk to them or too afraid to break perceived "rules".

 

[Wwanderer]

Online

Online dating isn't really specific to sites dedicated for the purpose. If a guy meets women from Facebook, Tagged, Language Partner, Pen Pals, Classified Ads, Travel guides, Blogs, etc... It is actually all included as part of online dating, even if the guy or woman is going a non-pay, non-traditional, or non-standard route.

Right, exactly what I was trying to say. In other words, when you see some survey result saying that 25% (or whatever) of couples marrying in X year met online, it does not mean that they all, or even mostly, met via dating websites. Some people probably jump to that incorrect assumption. It would be interesting to know how meeting online breaks down between explicitly dating services/sites (OKCupid, eHarmony etc) vs people just encountering each other online while there for some other purpose. But I have never seen numbers/surveys on that point.

Proper Way To Meet

Hmmm... There is something else, and in regards to Mr Cat. I don't think you answered his question.

Well, he seemed to me to be asking if there were alternatives to meeting women on the street for a gaijin in Japan with few social connections. Here's his post:

http://www.tokyoadultguide.com/thre...hing-her-on-the-street.9450/page-3#post-41858

And I thought I answered his questions with a post that included these specific answers:

For this thread, maybe it is sufficient to say that there surely are many alternatives. To see this ask people you know who are in long-term and otherwise good/happy relationships how they first met (if you don't already know).

But to your initial question, my answer is yes. It seems to me to be common sense and obvious that going to a place, in real life or online, where women interested in meeting men gather for that exact purpose is a better tactic than approaching women going about their everyday lives. They may already be in a committed relationship or they may be intent on doing something unrelated to dating (work, dealing with family problems) or they may be meeting someone any moment etc. Not rocket science!

Btw, if you want to know how couples are meeting in the US, you can find a lot of stats by googling something like "how couples met statistics"; here are few random example links (I have only scanned them briefly): ...

I'm not sure what else to say, but if @Mr Cat wants to rephrase his question or ask something further, I hope he will.

What do you think or could you make a list of what is the "proper context" in which a guy should meet a woman?

It seems you object to strangers introducing themselves

No, I do *not* object, certainly not in principle, "to strangers introducing themselves" nor do I think it is improper. I just think it is one of the *options* among many (and I know you like the idea of guys having multiple options), and like all of them, it has pros and cons. In my judgement cold-PUA is not one of the better options, at least not for most guys. Furthermore, I think it is absurd to have a forum about PUA in which it is unwelcome or seen as hostile for anyone to point out the cons.

Anyway, I think all of the common ways of couples meeting that are listed in the surveys we both linked/mentioned are just fine and "proper"...plus many others not mentioned. I don't have any personal list.

As I have mentioned a few times and tried to express in my dancing analogy, I think the best method is the most natural and least deliberate and goal driven one. Namely, just go ahead and live an active and full life and let it happen. But it has cons too, of course...but it is my *personal* favorite and has worked well for me, if anyone cares about that (not sure why they should). In terms of the analogy, I prefer to just get on the dance floor and move with the music rather than to devote a lot of time and energy to studying dance seriously.

which would leave having to be introduced through an intermediary (person or social media) . In PUA, it's called social circles. By the way, there are systems of PUA that specialize in this.

No, I disagree that it would "leave" only that option. There are many others. But anyway, I find the idea and terminology of "social circle" PUA to be really odd in the sense that I have never heard a couple who were introduced by common friends or who met via some social group describe it as a "pick-up". But whatever...more semantics and fine with me as long as it is defined clearly.

The negative in this way, social circles, is not meeting people that you actually want (because they are not in your circles) and not being able to meet different type of people (because everyone in the circle is too similar).

Yep, that's one of its disadvantages. And indeed one of the things that I like a lot about sugar dating is meeting and getting to know, sometimes very well indeed, women that I probably would otherwise never have encountered. And I agree that the diversity of the women you meet via PUA is one of its advantages.

-Ww

 

[Sinapse]

I think it is absurd to have a forum about PUA in which it is unwelcome or seen as hostile for anyone to point out the cons.

Right, I don't feel unwelcoming or hostile at all towards discussing the downsides of PUA, it's just that for the most part the main two (which I've already agreed upon and called out in name multiple times) of:

1. It could be bothersome to some women
2. It takes a ton of time

Aren't very compelling negatives, at least not to me. #1 is basically readily apparent to anyone from the outset, including the PUA beginner. We have ALL been there (unless you lack any empathic capacity), the nervous guy, wanting to talk to girls in a cold approach situation but not knowing how and not wanting to bother them. It is a direct result of conquering this fear rather than giving into it that we continue to do this. No, most PUAs do not delusionally think they never bother women. I see it as akin to skydiving. Some guys are here going "Skydiving is awesome! It feels great and is amazing and I've done it 1,000 times" and then some dude pipes up from the back and is like "Yeah, but I think you should really consider the fact that it's scary". Well yeah, it's scary. We know that fact intimately, as does anyone who even only intellectually considers it.

Or, to use your Tango analogy somewhat more directly, someone feels like by asking a girl for a dance that he is bothering her or that she won't want to dance with him. To the seasoned guys who have been dancing many years, they'll simply say "Yeah I thought that too once upon a time, but it doesnt matter, just do it!"

In short it's something I have thought about in the past. It's something I'm aware of. It's something anyone with a modicum of empathy and intellectual ability notices about pickup. So it's not that I am hostile towards it as I am bored of the issue itself (since I know my own stance intimately), and wary that it is another objection in disguise. Namely, guys who have never done it say "I don't want to bother women" as an excuse not to take action in the same way they say "I don't think she'll say yes" or "I'm too _______ to meet girls". These are all gut-level reactions which can pretty easily be dismissed with a little bit of thinking. Re: bothering, once again, the amount of "bother" the woman feels is so minor, and the benefit to both parties if the interaction goes well is so great, that it's not really worth putting a lot of mental energy into that fear.

I think the best method is the most natural and least deliberate and goal driven one. Namely, just go ahead and live an active and full life and let it happen.

Again, you say this as though this isn't the normal state of most guys. It's not some novel or new method or idea. This is what everybody does, before they get into pickup (if they do at all). Guys get frustrated by the inability of this method to lead to consistent dates and sex, or even if it does lead to sex, the own guy's ineptitude on said dates leaves him empty handed. THEN guys go to PUA. It's not like they aren't trying this method.

It's like saying "Hey look I'm skinny and I don't go to the gym at all. Just be natural like me and you can be skinny too."

Well, no not really. Some people need some serious change, heavy lifting and cardio, and dieting to achieve what might come naturally to others. Realize that if you have been getting laid consistently and to your heart and penis' desire since age 16 through your social circle, you are in the minority, not the majority. I too have been laid from my social circle, but it wasn't enough, especially when I first came to Japan.

I think it's actually pretty common for people out of college to find themselves for the first time in their life without a steady stream of similar aged women around them. This is when they have to change their approach to a more proactive one.

I like a lot about sugar dating is meeting and getting to know, sometimes very well indeed, women that I probably would otherwise never have encountered.

I'm curious how this works. How DO you meet these women?

 

[Solong]

I find the idea and terminology of "social circle" PUA to be really odd in the sense that I have never heard a couple who were introduced by common friends or who met via some social group describe it as a "pick-up". But whatever...more semantics and fine with me as long as it is defined clearly.

-Ww

PUAs and Social Circles

The fact that you didn't know that social circles are a CORE method in certain styles of PUA, speaks to your lack of knowledge on the subject. It's like you react to the word "PUA" in a completely negative way, versus looking at it objectively.

In PUA, social circles are seen as another way to meet women. It can be seen as an extension of using a wingman. Instead of having 1 person assisting you in talking to women, you have a group.

A group of wingmen can create a social circle where they introduce women to each other or create environments to attract women to their group. For example, have a party. The party or event can range from: hotel parties, dart bars, or even bowling. Whatever they can think of.

PUAs also learn to join, become members, or befriend people of other social circles for getting dates. They befriend or get contacts of other guys or women, who can help introduce them to women. The key difference from someone who isn't effective or unaware, is the PUA assesses the effectiveness of the social circle. Is it helping or hurting him, or how can he make the situation work for him. He will leave groups he has deemed as unhelpful.

Many PUAs know the weaknesses of social circles, (which you appear not to know) such as group dymanics (overly complicated group relationships), popularity contests, peer pressure (forcing you to do what you don't want), and expending too much wasted effort on group activities running counter to your objective of getting dates.

There are many people in social circles that can NOT get dates. To including where sex is viewed negatively, the group or alphas in the group interfere or want to approve of relationships, acting fake to project a false public image, etc... Social circle dynamics being so complicated, that the person must escape or secretly bypass the group to find dates.

Consequently, in PUA, "cold approach" is taught as a viable option to get what you want directly or with less interference. Depending on the person or circumstances, it can be the best option. But, other methods are used when deemed appropriate or advantageous.

 

[Solong]

I'm curious how this works. How DO you meet these women?

You can meet them online. There are numerous English and Japanese sugarbaby websites. So in that respect, it has a bit of an online dating vibe to it. In fact, they are arguably in competition with each other in some ways.

Sugar dating is a more subdued form of buying women. It is technically legal in Japan, and arguably even in the U.S. and other Western countries. Especially milder forms of it, because it's so gray area and difficult to distinguish from real relationships.

I had explored this for around a year. This is arguably throwing money at a problem, and where the ethics and results are also highly questionable.

The skill level of the man is often low (exceptions exists), covered up by the woman being lured by money and financial security. In other words, had he not offered money, she may have never dated or had sexual relations with him. Example- fat, ugly, and old 60 year old bald guy with super hot sexy 20 year old female (not always this exteme).

The woman is into him for the money, not because she loves you, though later she might make such a claim. "I love you" or "I love spending your money." And thus her loyalty is always questionable or in doubt, because she may sell herself to another man with more money or more quickly leave you if ever you have financial or health difficulties.

However, some financially secure or rich guys can make it work, as buying different women are viable options or they can push a certain result out of the woman.

There is also the argument of time efficiency. Usually it's in favor of P4P, BUT if you want a woman of certain characteristics or sexual ability, it can be as equally hard to find as NP4P or PUA. Filtering to find what you want, often simply takes time or luck.

A friend and I (sugar dating route) did this to buy wingwomen. Bi-sexual sugarbabies (women) to find other women for sex. It worked reasonably well, minus the cash spent/wasted. It had a multiplying effect, because the sugarbaby was getting female sex friends and girlfiends.

BUT we found out we could do much of this without buying a sugarbaby. It is then when I went down the swinger path and then eventually PUA. I had developed a tremendous amount of skill and met with many guys that were naturals in swinger circles, before realizing there was PUA. I was able to hook up with bi-sexual or hypersexual women and have group sex, with women that simply liked sex and fun. So I have familiarity with both mindsets, methods, and results.

I argue it as a matter of efficiency and satisfaction. What requires less money, less time, less effort, and is the most satisfying for you.

 

[Wwanderer]

The fact that you didn't know that social circles are a CORE method in certain styles of PUA, speaks to your lack of knowledge on the subject.

My point is just that most people (untrained in PUA no doubt) do not refer to a couple being formed via, say, introduction by a mutual friend as a "pick-up". That just isn't the conventional usage/meaning of "pick-up", at least in my experience. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard it used that way.

It's like you react to the word "PUA" in a completely negative way, versus looking at it objectively.

Odd that you would say this while quoting one of my posts that says positive things about PUA and agrees that it has pros as well as cons! But whatever...

Many PUAs know the weaknesses of social circles, (which you appear not to know) such as group dymanics (overly complicated group relationships), popularity contests, peer pressure (forcing you to do what you don't want), and expending too much wasted effort on group activities running counter to your objective of getting dates.

Ah...now this is a very revealing comment that makes clear the difference between PUA and the (non-)method(s) which I think better. In my view, one should/would not have or join social circles with the objective of getting dates. Rather one's motivation would be to enjoy and benefit from being in the group, from...well...*socializing* with other people. Getting dates and finding mates often just happens naturally as a result. I can easily imagine that someone who is focused on just that one aspect (getting dates) of a social group could find all the other stuff going on frustrating or distracting.

Anyway, whatever the pros and cons (and I am sure there are both) of social circles, it works well for many people, as the surveys and tons of anecdotal evidence show. It is probably the single most common way that couple get together...an "option" (in your language) with a great track record.

-Ww

 

[Solong]

Ah...now this is a very revealing comment that makes clear the difference between PUA and the (non-)method(s) which I think better. In my view, one should/would not have or join social circles with the objective of getting dates. Rather one's motivation would be to enjoy and benefit from being in the group, from...well...*socializing* with other people. Getting dates and finding mates often just happens naturally as a result. I can easily imagine that someone who is focused on just that one aspect (getting dates) of a social group could find all the other stuff going on frustrating or distracting.

Anyway, whatever the pros and cons (and I am sure there are both) of social circles, it works well for many people, as the surveys and tons of anecdotal evidence show. It is probably the single most common way that couple get together...an "option" (in your language) with a great track record.

-Ww

Ww, you haven't yet described a method for getting women, outside of a man just effeminately standing around and hoping a woman approaches him or random luck.

It almost seems like you are against men seeking out women. Rather a man should just ignore them, and hope one randomly comes along, eventually. This is a method for failure, for many men and even some women.

Furthermore, you can join groups and social circles nearly devoid of the opposite sex. A guy can join a men's softball team or chess club, and there will be no women in sight. And him standing around looking cute, is more likely to attract homosexual males than females.

 

[Wwanderer]

Ww, you haven't yet described a method for getting women, outside of a man just effeminately standing around and hoping a woman approaches him or random luck.

It almost seems like you are against men seeking out women. Rather a man should just ignore them, and hope one randomly comes along, eventually. This is a method for failure, for many men and even some women.

@Solong - <sigh> Well, I don't think we have communicated much to each other, but by once more making up a bunch of random absurd things and attributing them to me, you have pretty well convinced me that you aren't interested in discussing this topic in any meaningful way. I am pretty close to giving up on this conversation with you. But before I do, let me go through your response in a simple and easy to understand way in an attempt to show how pointless it is to continue:

Where did I say *anything* about "standing around"?

Where did I say *anything* about doing so "effeminately" (or in a masculine/macho way for that matter)?

Where did I say *anything* about "hoping a woman approaches" or "random luck"?

Where did I say *anything* about being "against men seeking out women"?

Where did I say *anything* about men "ignoring" women?

Where did I say *anything* about "looking cute"?

In what way does being introduced by mutual friends (one example I did give) have anything at all to do with any of the above?

Do you really think you can convince anyone of anything in a debate by simply making up some absurd notion and attributing it to your "opponent" so that you can mock it?

And this thread is supposedly about PUA, one of the "options" men have. So what does it matter whether or not I suggest some other method? Do you think that PUA is the *only* way men ever meet women and form relationships successfully? That would be as absurd as the sorts of opinions you ascribe to me. It is all too silly.

Furthermore, you can join groups and social circles nearly devoid of the opposite sex. A guy can join a men's softball team or chess club, and there will be no women in sight.

Back to what can happen. Yes, many things can happen. Many things do happen.

Another thing that can and does happen is that a guy who became your pal (perhaps a guy from that softball team) introduces you to his sister or a female friend of his girlfriend or... Nor do you have to "stand around" and wait for it to happen. You can ask your pals to introduce you to women who might be interested in meeting you...or to some specific woman they know; it happens all the time, common as dirt. I'm fairly sure that such "warm" social connections produce waaaay more happy couples than PUA in fact.

And most people learn to enjoy dancing to their own satisfaction without spending years and huge effort mastering the Tango. The Tango (or whatever) is the way for a few, maybe even the best way for some people...but very few.

And him standing around looking cute, is more likely to attract homosexual males than females.

Finally, why do you bring up homosexuality in this discussion? What does that have to do with the topic?

Unless you care to answer at least a good number of my questions in this post, I think I'll simply look forward to discussing other topics with you in other threads.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

Again, you say this as though this isn't the normal state of most guys. It's not some novel or new method or idea. This is what everybody does, before they get into pickup (if they do at all). Guys get frustrated by the inability of this method to lead to consistent dates and sex, or even if it does lead to sex, the own guy's ineptitude on said dates leaves him empty handed. THEN guys go to PUA. It's not like they aren't trying this method.

It's like saying "Hey look I'm skinny and I don't go to the gym at all. Just be natural like me and you can be skinny too."

Well, no not really. Some people need some serious change, heavy lifting and cardio, and dieting to achieve what might come naturally to others.

I am replying to this part of your post separately from the other parts because I think it is a particularly good and important point and indeed one to which I haven't responded much or very explicitly.

First, I agree or concede that you are right to say that to "just go ahead and live an active and full life and let it happen" does not work equally well for all men...just as staying naturally skinny does not (good analogy!). Moreover, I think how well it works varies over a wide range. For some guys connecting with women comes very naturally and effortlessly. It always has for me, and so I might well be underestimating how difficult it can be for others, but I can only speak from my own experiences, as do we all here. I also understand that socializing with women may be so very difficult for some men, that maybe some huge effort like PUA is really their only option; however, I think this is a pretty small (and unfortunate) group. The huge majority are somewhere in the middle surely; it is not totally effortless for them but neither is it almost impossibly difficult.

Imo, the major barrier to meeting and wooing women for most men is fear of rejection and lack of self-confidence. You have said similar things in many of your posts. Those who get past this barrier and find mates mostly do so by simply pushing themselves through the fear and nervousness and getting on with it, perhaps with a bit of help from alcohol or encouragement from friends. Those who fail to get past the barrier typically do so because they give up at some point and just sit at home watching TV, playing video games and feeling sorry for themselves (or some equivalent way of giving up). PUA might solve the problems of the latter group, but I strongly suspect that nothing so "extreme" (imo) is really necessary for all but a very few. Again, just like most people can push themselves out onto the dance floor and fight through their nervousness until they relax enough to enjoy dancing without going to all the time and effort of mastering the Tango.

I also think that you are overlooking an important point (as was I).

Namely, "trying too hard" actually makes many challenges harder to overcome; they increase nervousness and fear of failure. My own experiences teaching as well as vast educational literature plus well established wisdom in lots of area of training and learning support this. Viewing a task as extremely hard makes it all the harder psychologically and makes giving up easier to justify to oneself. Concentrating on the explicit details of how something is done often keeps one from entering "the zone" where it seems to happen on its own.

Lots of athletic and artistic skills are like this. Just to pick one example, try teaching a Little Leaguer to pitch. If you instruct him on all the fine points of pitching techniques, how to grip the ball and how to coordinate his arm and leg motions and so forth, and explain to him how difficult it is to get the ball into the strike zone and how much depends on doing it just right etc, you will end up with a kid frozen by anxiety on the mound and moving like an awkward robot when he does finally give it a try. Instead tell him, "Just throw the ball to the catcher and don't think about anything else; it's just a game of catch" and you will soon have those strikes sailing over the plate.

In other words, I'd bet that the PUA concept and literature and so forth actually make it harder for some men to meet and seduce women. In other words it makes them more likely to stay home and jack-off between their favorite TV shows because it portrays the task of going out and finding a mate sound so daunting and like so much trouble that giving up seems like a better or more realistic option.

Realize that if you have been getting laid consistently and to your heart and penis' desire since age 16 through your social circle, you are in the minority, not the majority. I too have been laid from my social circle, but it wasn't enough, especially when I first came to Japan.

I think it's actually pretty common for people out of college to find themselves for the first time in their life without a steady stream of similar aged women around them. This is when they have to change their approach to a more proactive one.

This is another important point, imo. Of course, meeting and bedding a "steady stream" of very attractive women sounds good to almost all hetro men and is the goal (or "lure"?) held out by the proponents of PUA. Maybe PUA actually is one of the best ways to achieve such an objective. However, in reality have intimacy with hundreds (or even tens) of women is NOT what is *required* to make most men happy and satisfied with their lives and relationships. If it were, the world would be filled with dejected, depressed and heavily psychologically damaged men. This is why PUA doesn't even show up on the radar when you see data on or hear stories about how happy couples met for the most part. Though it may work, it is vast "overkill" for reaching the goals most men have; there are a lot less demanding routes to relationship happiness in other words.

In this sense, PUA justifies itself by setting up an unnatural and needlessly difficult goal from the perspective of the vast majority of men...though they may not want to admit it that they are happy to "settle" for something that is "merely" good rather than insisting on something fantastic.

There are probably a few men who really do need or very seriously want the "steady stream" of women PUA promises, but again, not so many I think. (Btw and fwiiw but not very relevant, I am probably in this group personally; the intimate relationships I have enjoyed with a large number of women has been an important and great part of my life. However, I am extremely well aware that I am an unusual person in multiple ways. And, of course, I have gotten what I wanted in this realm by a different, not necessarily better, route than PUA.)

-Ww

 

[Solong]

Ww- In what way does being introduced by mutual friends (one example I did give)...

Ww- You can ask your pals to introduce you to women who might be interested in meeting you...

Solong- Hoping that your immediate circle of friends will introduce you to somebody you like or is compatible with you can be haphazard and arguably NOT proactive.

1) Since WHEN do your friends know exactly what you like better than yourself?

2) Why wait around for somebody to find, what you can find directly by yourself?

3) Why be afraid of talking to women that you are interested in directly?

4) His friends or social circle might be failing to help.

Like they are too busy, married, don't want to get involved or be blamed...

5) His circle of friends or social circle may simply not have or know a woman that he likes.

And if the friends must go FIND such a woman, this is little different from a wingman helping to find women or he himself finding women at a social gathering. As in all cases, the women are outside that immediate social circle.

6) PUA uses "Social Circles" as one of it's methods. You are advocating for something that is already contained and explained in many styles of PUA. Where well studied PUAs understand the advantages and disadvantages of social circles, while the average person or yourself may not.

Ww- So what does it matter whether or not I suggest some other method?

Solong-

1) You are critizing PUA, but with seemingly little understanding of it besides reacting negatively to the word "PUA".

It is like me saying that a Porsche is a bad car. You ask me why that's so, and I say, "Because they are bad and I heard they are bad, so people shouldn't drive them." This is not an explanation of what is bad about a Porsche, but simply stating an unfounded opinion not based on facts.

2) You are critizing something, which you have little understanding of, while not offering any better alternatives.

So, for a guy having trouble getting dates, you can't give him any comprehensive advice, other than critizing systems designed to specifically help him.

Social circles is already a well explored method and used by PUAs. Saying to use social circles, is saying to use something PUA systems use too, plus they offer MORE than only just that 1 way/option.

Ww- Do you think that PUA is the *only* way men ever meet women and form relationships successfully?

Solong- This goes back again to you not clearly understanding what PUA is, but simply reacting negatively to the word "PUA".

PUA is about the study of the ways in which men and women form/start relationships, and breaking it down into detail, and then making it into a conscious process.

Instead of a person fumbling and haphazardly not knowing what they are doing or what is going on (and calling that natural), they make it a conscious process they understand. The man then has more options in going about the process of meeting and forming relationships with women.

When you talk to myself or Sinapse, it is clearly noticeable that we give details about the process of meeting women and starting relationships, where critics don't.

Ww- I'm fairly sure that such "warm" social connections produce waaaay more happy couples than PUA in fact.

Solong- This is a statement NOT based on any facts, and again points to your unfounded negative bias.

1) Nobody can say how happy or lasting a relationship will be, based on how it started. Whether that's a "cold approach", with a wingman at a club, or even at a social gathering.

2) A person may willfully choose to seek out a long term or short term relationship too.

A woman may specifically be seeking sexual adventure and 1 night stands. She may specifically not want to get married, be married and cheat, or wants polyamory (dating a couple guys simultaneously).

3) Warm "social connection" vs "cold approach".

A guy may happen to be sitting next to a woman in an airport terminal and start a conversation. From this so-called "cold approach" they start a relationship and become married.

A woman may message a guy online, and from this "cold approach", they end up dating and marrying.

A group (social connection) may try to "hook up" 2 friends that they think would look good together. Putting peer pressure on their girlfriend to date a guy. She may not really like the guy, but seek to appease her friends. Later she cheats on him or makes up some excuse to break up with him. Also she may try to put the blame on him for the break up, to look justified in front of her friends.

Basically, human relationships are complicated. But in your simplistic view Ww, you give the impression "warm social connections" are always good or superior. This demonstrates a lack of sophisticated understanding about the dynamics of relationships, beyond a tradionalist old fashion view of how relationships "should" form versus how they "realistically" and "flexibly" do form.

PUA is about giving men options too, where you seemingly are rigidly giving few. "Social connections" is not the "be all end all" of dating or how people meet. "Be natural" is not useful advice for people that are having dating problems or for people that seek to master and understand the seduction process.

Namely, "trying too hard" actually makes many challenges harder to overcome; they increase nervousness and fear of failure...

In other words, I'd bet that the PUA concept and literature and so forth actually make it harder for some men to meet and seduce women...

You are making some ridiculous assumptions about PUA, not based on facts or any actual study of it. Usually the men studying it already were having a hard time meeting women or wanted to understand more about the seduction process. You are turning things around backwards.

You are accusing PUA of doing something that can already be an existing problem. A guy may turn to PUA because he has trouble with women and feels he is failing, thus it's a solution to an existing problem.

This also goes into your "natural" concept, which I believed is strongly unrealistic. It's like telling a pro Boxer he shouldn't train or practice, just go out there swinging widely like a school girl with his head down. "Be natural". The purpose of PUA is not to be mindless, but specifically aware of what is going on.

By being mindful and aware of the seduction process, it empowers men. Knowledge is power, NOT ignorance.

However, in reality have intimacy with hundreds (or even tens) of women is NOT what is *required* to make most men happy and satisfied with their lives and relationships.

This is another unjustified condemnation of PUA. The number of relationships entered is based on what the man and/or woman wants to do. Furthermore, plenty of men and women have numerous relationships or practice serial mongamy, who are NOT PUAs.

The PUA can simply be satisfied with the woman he's found and try to marry her, or be happy with the options he has.

 

[Sinapse]

The huge majority are somewhere in the middle surely; it is not totally effortless for them but neither is it almost impossibly difficult.

Ok I think we're once again talking about different things a little bit. You are saying it won't be hard to the average, socially normal guy to get laid in Japan. I agree with this for the most part if you are going for low-hanging fruit.

The "huge majority" of foreign men in Japan date trolls with うすい faces that most self-respecting Japanese guys won't touch. A bit blunt, but I'm just being real here. I have many friends who met their girlfriends or wives through "normal"means like social circle, work, or introductions, and almost none of them are actually hot. Most girls who learn English, get educations, and serially date foreigners are lower on the scale of beauty (going by Japanese standards).

Generally (again, with the exclusion of some high-end hostesses and genetically blessed daughters of rich families) the hottest women in Japan drop out of high school or don't go to college because they can make a living off of their looks. The ones who are ugly or have typically "Asian" usui faces realize this and commit to studying hard to get into a university because they know they have to have a career because they can't count on just being scooped up by a young shacho or salaryman based on their looks alone. Thus, these second bracket of educated, career-oriented women have the double-whammy of being not the highest in demand to Japanese men, and knowing English. Thus, they gravitate towards foreigners. This is much the same as J girls who genetically have larger butts gravitate towards hip hop because they find acceptance there.

Westerners come to Japan, are blinded by the fact that the girl that's into them is actually skinny for once, and settle down with what they just think is an "Asian" face but actually is considered unattractive in Japan. And if they like that and are happy with it, then fine. I'm not here to tell anyone they shouldn't be happy. Getting this kind of girl should actually be pretty easy if you're reasonably social.

BUT

Some guys want the REAL hotness walking around, on their own power, just by the sheer force of their will and understanding.

----------------------------------------------

In short, you have some correlations:

Group A:
Black haired. Usui faces. Small / slit eyes. Educated. Speak English. Been to Guam / Bali / Studied abroad in Australia / US / Canada. OL or career focused.

If you want a girlfriend who looks like this, it will be easy.

Group B:
Brown haired. More makeup. More genetically "gifted" (read: attractive by Japanese standards, enough to make a living off of it). Probably doesn't speak English. Probably hasn't been outside of Japan.

If you want a girlfriend who looks like this, good luck. You are going to have to work at it. But, it will be worth it!

So let's not get it twisted here. I am not saying that the average foreign dude will have a cripplingly hard time getting laid. No, actually, the average foreign dude should be able to get a lot of Group A type girls. But show me a guy without game who can get Group B girls. Or @Wwanderer show me how to have 30 group B girls who look like the one in the picture in my social circle without being a Japanese shacho or working in night life/fashion/AV/etc, and I'll take YOUR bootcamp.

And yes there are anamolies. There are plenty of raven-haired OL goddesses, and plenty of busted brown-haired snaggle-tooth chain smoking ratchet girls. But I'm talking about generalities and trends. The hottest women will be found in Group B, the group that, not coincidentally, is most detached from average FOB whitedude Jim.

In order to get these girls you go where they are - kyaba / high level goukons if you have the $$, and street if you don't/don't want to spend it .. but even if you go to kyaba/high level goukons you still need game.


Soooo

it is vast "overkill" for reaching the goals most men have; there are a lot less demanding routes to relationship happiness in other words.

Yes, again, if you want one or a small number of below average Group A girls.

------------------------------------------

I also think that you are overlooking an important point (as was I).

Namely, "trying too hard" actually makes many challenges harder to overcome; they increase nervousness and fear of failure.

the PUA concept and literature and so forth actually make it harder for some men to meet and seduce women.

Actually we have already discussed this and I don't think we overlooked it. You brought this up and I brought up the fact that guys need to first admit they suck, then learn the behaviors, then get good at them until they are easily reproducible without thought, then finally, they can throw away everything and be "naturally" good. This is the end goal, for sure, but to deny the many, micro steps to get there is foolish.

Unconscious incompentence (You suck and you don't really realize it)
--------->
Conscious incompetence (You suck and you realize it)
--------->
Conscious competence (You can do it if you focus and "try hard")
--------->
Unconscious competence (You can do it without thinking and can discard all the crutches, styles, and techniques that got you there.

This is the general path. As I mentioned, a lot of guys do fall off the path. But we break it down as specifically and precisely as possible. And, one of the most important parts of learning pickup is to

Never be attached to the outcome

And have a

Progress-oriented mindset not a results-based mindset.

This means that we take small steps. If you are terrified of talking to a woman on the street we start with saying hi to a guy on the street. Then, good job! Next, we talk to an old lady on the street and ask her where Starbucks is. Good job! Then, ask for directions from a younger lady. Good job! And before you know it you're sitting in bed next to a sexy 19 year old.

Trust me, we're very aware that putting a lot of pressure and knowledge out there quickly makes it hard on the guy learning. That's why we break it down into the most rudimentary steps and reward them for every tiny step of progress they make. If guys can attach their sense of self-worth to the right action they take, and not the results they get, they will continue.

So no, we don't just throw guys out into the shark tank and tell them to sink or swim, SNL (same-night lay) or die. We are very aware of nervousness, fear of failure, and how to actually coach guys so they can succeed. Everybody learns differently, but the ones who are hardest to teach are guys who DEMAND to examine the results every step of the way (there was another thread where a guy was wracking his brain because he did 70 approaches and didn't get any sex) and REFUSE to trust in the process and the little steps that we teach every step of the way. The guys who end up doing well at it are guys who can cultivate a sort of masochism in the path of right action and rejection, and accept that every interaction is a learning experience.

 

[Wwanderer]

My just previous post addressed the part of your post, @Sinapse, that I found most interesting, but I had some responses to other parts too, which I put in this post:

Right, I don't feel unwelcoming or hostile at all towards discussing the downsides of PUA,

Indeed, and I have gotten no feeling of such aversion to criticism or discussion from your posts...which is the reason I keep thanking you for them.

it's just that for the most part the main two (which I've already agreed upon and called out in name multiple times) of:

1. It could be bothersome to some women
2. It takes a ton of time

Aren't very compelling negatives, at least not to me.

I definitely see these as bigger problems than you do (particularly #1), but I also agree that these are matters of personal opinion and judgement, so they are probably not worth pursuing further.

My other comment is that these are by no means the strongest or most important criticisms I would make of PUA. They are just the ones that we have so far discussed a lot so far (because someone else brought them up). I may start a thread about my major criticisms of PUA at some point, but not now.

I see it as akin to skydiving. Some guys are here going "Skydiving is awesome! It feels great and is amazing and I've done it 1,000 times" and then some dude pipes up from the back and is like "Yeah, but I think you should really consider the fact that it's scary". Well yeah, it's scary. We know that fact intimately, as does anyone who even only intellectually considers it.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I agree that it being scary is a, perhaps the, major problem. But for most I don't think it is all that scary, not so scary that most guys can't overcome the fear by ordinary self-control and determination to get something they really want. You skydiving example is useful in this context. Surely few guys want to find out what it is like to jump out of a plane more than they want to be with women, and surely it is scarier to jump out of a plane. So, if lots of guys have the nerve to overcome their fears and jump out of a plane, I think most guys can (and do!) overcome their fear of being rejected by a woman.

Or, to use your Tango analogy somewhat more directly, someone feels like by asking a girl for a dance that he is bothering her or that she won't want to dance with him. To the seasoned guys who have been dancing many years, they'll simply say "Yeah I thought that too once upon a time, but it doesnt matter, just do it!"

Sorry, I have that analogy copyrighted, so now you owe me the usage fees!

But actually you have changed the analogy in a fundamental way, I was not talking about and fear or worry about asking a woman to dance with you. That had nothing to do with it. The analogy I had in mind works if he guy already has a partner or if it is some form of dancing that doesn't require a partner. The point (of my analogy) is that you can dance "by just letting it happen naturally" or by training yourself to do it according to some system. Both have pros and cons, but one is much easier and perhaps more fun than the other. Most people do one, although a few get a lot out of doing the other.

So it's not that I am hostile towards it as I am bored of the issue itself (since I know my own stance intimately), ...

You're ***bored*** with the topic!? Wait, wait! Am I confused or are you not the very guy who *started* a thread called "Am I Harassing A Girl By Approaching Her On The Street?" What an odd way to express boredom with a topic! And, btw, which thread was that? Oh, wait a moment...

Sorry, just kidding you...couldn't resist such an easy shot!

I'm curious how this works. How DO you meet these women?

Which women? These days I meet women most often via sugar dating/arrangement sites. There are a few old threads, including 2 or 3 I started, on sugar dating already on TAG, so we probably don't want to start one in he midst of this thread. But if you want to talk about sugar dating, including both its pros and cons, I'm happy to do so in a different thread. It is a tricky topic because there are so many quite different things that people refer to as sugar dating. If you mean how have I met women through out my life, as you might suspect from what I've posted, there are many different ways, and I do not regard any of them as a "technique" or "method"; what I do has just depended on my circumstances and opportunities. Fwiiw and sense this is TAG, I should perhaps mention that I did not meet women via any form of p4p for much of my life simply because my p4p budget was so limited. Anyway, while I think your question could easily lead us off on a tangent, I'm happy to try to satisfy your curiosity if you want to sharpen your question(s) and perhaps ask them elsewhere.

Thanks for another exchange with substantive content.

-Ww

 

[Sinapse]

A friend and I (sugar dating route) did this to buy wingwomen. Bi-sexual sugarbabies (women) to find other women for sex. It worked reasonably well, minus the cash spent/wasted. It had a multiplying effect, because the sugarbaby was getting female sex friends and girlfiends.

BUT we found out we could do much of this without buying a sugarbaby. It is then when I went down the swinger path and then eventually PUA. I had developed a tremendous amount of skill and met with many guys that were naturals in swinger circles, before realizing there was PUA. I was able to hook up with bi-sexual or hypersexual women and have group sex, with women that simply liked sex and fun. So I have familiarity with both mindsets, methods, and results.

I argue it as a matter of efficiency and satisfaction. What requires less money, less time, less effort, and is the most satisfying for you.

I think this has been one of your most interesting posts recently, thanks for sharing! Yeah I guess I went the opposite route, learned how to pickup girls from bars, clubs, streets, trains, etc, and THEN started getting them to have group sex. I've never paid for a woman to sleep with me or be with me for another reason, so it's cool to hear about different things to do with them besides just have sex (sex is very cheap to me.. I would probably choose a good sandwich over sex most days of the week, so can't imagine spending much money on it).

I'm currently starting to explore taking girls to couples kissa / happening bars, but since I'm not sure of the quality inside the bar, I'm going to bring my own party of women in there so w e can have fun even if its dead inside.