Is Pua A Natural Human Trait Or Something Learned?

[User#8628]

Negging has it's uses in helping men overcome their issues

Yes, and it helps men get issues.
Always consider what you are taking from someone, not only what you gain with it.
It can be a huge slap in the face for an insecure woman to get insulted out of nowhere because a guy wants to sleep with her.
Commenting on someone's weight for example literally helps developping eating disorders.

 

[Sinapse]

Always consider what you are taking from someone, not only what you gain with it.
It can be a huge slap in the face for an insecure woman to get insulted out of nowhere because a guy wants to sleep with her.
Commenting on someone's weight for example literally helps developping eating disorders.

I agree. And guys who think this is what negging is are missing the point and applying it incorrectly (and it might cause some damage!). It should be seen, rather, as NOT artificially censoring half of the emotional range of content. So if, for example, the typical conversation you have with friends ranges from:

Negative |----------------Neutral----------------| Positive

In other words, if your friends say some whack shit, you will call them out on it. But you do it from a place of having their best interests at heart.

With attractive women, however, most guys are ARTIFICIALLY positive, and express themselves like this towards women:

-----| Positive

This feels saccharine and weak and is still a strategy to try to get laid (I'm sure you've experienced such over-positivity and realized the guy just wanted in your pants). "Negging" as you describe it would be

Negative |---

Which is harsh and weak.

But in reality, both of those expressions are somewhat false and untrue to yourself. Instead, you should behave much as if you would with your girlfriend or close friend, like this:

Negative |----------------Neutral----------------| Positive

A healthy, full range of emotions and content. This is what I refer to as "expressing yourself honestly." The implication of course being that most guys naturally censor part of their expression.

 

[Wwanderer]

@Exnocomment and other newbies to the TAG "PUA wars" - I have participated extensively and exhaustively in many of the "warm and friendly debates" of the pros and cons, virtues and evils, of PUA/nampa/game in this forum. Browsing old threads in this forum will show that this is a vast understatement.

One thing that I have come to understand very clearly is that guys who claim to be PUAs are doing their "art" in vastly different ways and with vastly different values and attitudes (towards women and towards themselves)...so much so that by itself the term is close to meaningless.

For example, check-out TAG posts by, say, @4vibes and compare to those by @Sinapse and @static, maybe include @Solong too for another point of comparison. There are lots of others to choose from as well.

Unsurprisingly, all of them see their personal form of PU artistry as being above reproach even if they won't defend what other men claiming to be PUAs do and say.

Taking my word for the above could save you from reading and writing 100s of posts!

-Ww

 

[Sinapse]

guys who claim to be PUAs are doing their "art" in vastly different ways and with vastly different values and attitudes (towards women and towards themselves)...so much so that by itself the term is close to meaningless.

For example, check-out TAG posts by, say, @4vibes and compare to those by @Sinapse and @static, maybe include @Solong too for another point of comparison. There are lots of others to choose from as well.

Notably, I think the only one of those people who self-identifies as a "PUA" is @4vibes

 

[static]

Unsurprisingly, all of them see their personal form of PU artistry as being above reproach even if they won't defend what other men claiming to be PUAs do and say.

-Ww

Do you defend mongers who beat their girls? How about those that rape the girls and refuse to pay? Or those that show up with extra people in their party?

I sure wouldn't. I'd say they're a disgrace to mongers everywhere! I wouldn't even call them mongers, since they're not even respecting the basic tenants of proper mongering etiquette.

 

[Wwanderer]

Do you defend mongers who beat their girls? How about those that rape the girls and refuse to pay? Or those that show up with extra people in their party?

I sure wouldn't. I'd say they're a disgrace to mongers everywhere! I wouldn't even call them mongers, since they're not even respecting the basic tenants of proper mongering etiquette.

I did not mean to imply that PUA is the only category or group of people who vary so much that the category is not very useful, at least for normative purposes. And indeed, mongers have a far worse "public image" and are looked down on far more than PUAs. One way to see this difference is to note that mongers, even the best behaved of them, almost always keep their p4p activities secret from their family, friends, co-workers, employers etc to avoid the stigmatization and disgrace associated with mongering; by contrast a lot of PUAs go around boasting (in essence) about their activities, writing books about them, giving bootcamps, posting YouTube instructional videos and so forth.

Perhaps it is unfair, but I don't think you are likely to get much sympathy from mongers about PUAs being unfairly and inaccurately criticized by the world at large. The image problems with which PUAs deal look pretty tame to most mongers I'd think.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

Notably, I think the only one of those people who self-identifies as a "PUA" is @4vibes

Really? @static 's posts in the very thread (as well as others) gives the very strong impression that he considers himself a PUA, and I am sure that there are multiple posts on TAG in which you have associated yourself with the PUA community, although you often add that you don't particularly like the label and definitely dislike some elements of it (the community). And before any of the other PUAs joined TAG, @Solong often took it on himself to speak for and defend the idea of PUA/nampa/game; in fact I believe it was he who first advocated a separate forum for the topic.

I think @4vibes stands out a bit as the TAG PUA who most closely resembles and most strongly espouses some of the more negative popular images of what a PUA is and does. Do you think that is a fair characterization?

-Ww

 

[Sinapse]

Really? @static 's posts in the very thread (as well as others) gives the very strong impression that he considers himself a PUA, and I am sure that there are multiple posts on TAG in which you have associated yourself with the PUA community, although you often add that you don't particularly like the label and definitely dislike some elements of it (the community). And before any of the other PUAs joined TAG, @Solong often took it on himself to speak for and defend the idea of PUA/nampa/game; in fact I believe it was he who first advocated a separate forum for the topic.

I think @4vibes stands out a bit as the TAG PUA who most closely resembles and most strongly espouses some of the more negative popular images of what a PUA is and does. Do you think that is a fair characterization?

-Ww

I'll let the other guys come chime in for themselves what they identify with. I certainly saw 4vibes doing the most "We PUA are X or Y" type claims. And yes, I'd say he characterized a lot of people's distaste for PUAs in general rather well!

 

[static]

We're definitely getting way off topic here, so this is gonna be my last post her about this.

I did not mean to imply that PUA is the only category or group of people who vary so much that the category is not very useful, at least for normative purposes. And indeed, mongers have a far worse "public image" and are looked down on far more than PUAs. One way to see this difference is to note that mongers, even the best behaved of them, almost always keep their p4p activities secret from their family, friends, co-workers, employers etc to avoid the stigmatization and disgrace associated with mongering; by contrast a lot of PUAs go around boasting (in essence) about their activities, writing books about them, giving bootcamps, posting YouTube instructional videos and so forth.

Perhaps it is unfair, but I don't think you are likely to get much sympathy from mongers about PUAs being unfairly and inaccurately criticized by the world at large. The image problems with which PUAs deal look pretty tame to most mongers I'd think.

-Ww

Like I said earlier, I have a problem when people mis-categorize PUA as anything more than it actually is, social proficiency building and a language used to critically discuss social interactions between people for the purpose of improving. In practice, it's the systematic approach to meeting women. It's a skill. Such skills require practice to improve, thus a higher volume of women than most people. I don't see the problem society has with this. Most of the complaints I hear about it are either "they're annoying" and mostly things that are completely false about it's practice. It's like criticizing a basketball player who spends hours with private coaches, and daily practicing free throws when comparing him to your guy who just plays basketball with his friends after work. Mongers too I think get a bad rap, and I would defend with the same fervor the practices of mongering in a situation where it's a consensual exchange of services. I'd criticize a monger in situations where it's damaging one or both parties, though. The practice of mongering vs mongers are very different in my eyes, much in the same way that the PUA teachings are separate from the PUA.

Also as I said before, I don't care what people think about me so much as I care about the effect it has on society at large. Obviously I'd prefer people not to demonize people who engage in consensual activities, be it pick up, mongering, S&M, whatever. That's not the case though. What happens when I introduce my wife to my future boss, and when he asks how we met, and I tell her that I picked her up off the streets, he now has this impression in her mind that she's some raving slut that goes home with some stranger? How does that reflect on me when he considers me for a promotion, but he doesn't want to do it because it would "damage the company's image" or something equally stupid like that. I mean, even if I don't care about it, there are people out there who will judge, treat and affect you according to that impression. Or even when I talk to my friend who's having problems finding a girlfriend, and I recommend him some material to help him solve his problem, and without even looking at it goes "Ewww, those creeps? Forget that, I don't want to be like that." and goes on hating his life. He's my friend, I want him to be happy, yet because of his erroneous impression of what PUA actually is, he'll never know. I don't care if you don't like it, as long as it's based on intellectual honesty.

The main reason I even participate in these threads is because I want other members who look at this with a negative impression, to realize the benefits and their own misconceptions about what PUA actually is. Usually those guys end up messaging me privately and I get them information, or they get interested in taking classes from Sinapse, or whatever. I know I'm not going to change the vocal people's minds.

Really? @static 's posts in the very thread (as well as others) gives the very strong impression that he considers himself a PUA, and I am sure that there are multiple posts on TAG in which you have associated yourself with the PUA community, although you often add that you don't particularly like the label and definitely dislike some elements of it (the community). And before any of the other PUAs joined TAG, @Solong often took it on himself to speak for and defend the idea of PUA/nampa/game; in fact I believe it was he who first advocated a separate forum for the topic.

I think @4vibes stands out a bit as the TAG PUA who most closely resembles and most strongly espouses some of the more negative popular images of what a PUA is and does. Do you think that is a fair characterization?

-Ww

I don't identify as a PUA; I don't really identify as anything other than myself. I hate labels. =P
That said, the message that many of the successful PUA's out there teach is what I defend. The information is fantastic and if given a fair shake, I think a lot of people would agree with it. Most people don't even get that far because it has the label of "PUA."
Despite that though, guys like Sinapse and myself likely would be labeled as PUA's despite our desires, but hey, society now loves the whole identity grouping stupidity that's going around right now, so *shrug*

 

[Wwanderer]

@static - Forgive me for not quoting your post in detail. I am posting from an iPad, which makes quoting excerpts a bit cumbersome. I am happy to make this my last reply to you in this thread as well, especially since I don't think we are really saying anything very different.

The point of my first post in the thread was simply to say that what you mean by PUA and what @Exnocomment was discussing are probably very different things...and indeed that different people, including different guys who identify as PUAs or defend/advocate the practice of PUA, can be referring to quite different behaviors and ideas...some deplorable, some not. I could be wrong, but I *think* that you agree that those deplorable behavior and ideas exist; your point is that they are not "actual" PUA behavior...or, more precisely, that you would prefer that they not be called PUA.

Perhaps our one difference is that I do not see why you get to decide what is and isn't "actual" PUA. I can relate to the feeling, both as a monger and as a member of other widely misunderstood and loosely defined groups of people which include admirable and *deplorable* people (e.g., Americans, scientists). However, I realize and accept that the definition of such a group or activity (e.g., science) is not mine to set and that others have the same ability I do to decide what they mean by a given term and how a given group is defined. Moreover, society (or a given community) ultimately decides what the commonly understood meaning/definition is going to be.

Finally and also partially in response to @Sinapse 's post above, I think the fact that so many guys who will defend, advocate, study and practice PUA "skills" still resist being labeled a PUA themselves is strongly supports my point that the group is very diverse and includes people who self-identify as PUAs but with whom one might not want to be associated. All of this makes it very hard to have a clear discussion of PUA...which, once more, was what I meant in my original post.

-Ww

 

[Jbagz]

I find this way of life highly disturbing and anachronistic. Just because something is "natural" it is not desirable or good. Or do you think disabled persons should be disintegrated because helping them is against natural selection and empathy for the weak just something the current atmosphere of society dictates us?

If you want to stick your penis into every hole you find appealing, fine. Promiscuity is not condemnable. But please, don't think of yourself as the Liberator of us poor suppressed men. The way you're trying to construct a philosophy out of this is ridiculous.

Mhm I agree. But OP asked if it was natural or not.



......what? Where did that come from?



....huh? I just like sex.. like many people on this board.



I never said that. But thanks for the title!!

I've been laughing at these two posts for a couple of days now.

 

[Wwanderer]

@Jbagz - Do you consider yourself to be a PUA?

-Ww

 

[Jbagz]

@Jbagz - Do you consider yourself to be a PUA?

-Ww

Although I use some of the techniques that PUAs preach, I would not use that term to describe myself.

I do consider myself a student of human behavior, especially in how we communicate. I first got into paying attention to body language in a business environment, and put it to use there.

My goal was to establish dominance and persuade others at work, males included. Much of what the PUAs pay attention to can be found in the very old book, How to win friends and influence people, by Dale Carnegie. There are volumes of other books on the subject that aren't geared specifically to picking up women. I've read a few of those and actively tried to hone being a persuasive person.

At some point I did realize that I was pretty good at scoring dates with girls that I encountered in my daily life.

When in Japan I was good at getting cute cashiers at 7/11s and coffee shops to go out with me. I never approached girls on the street, my game involved laying more groundwork.

If I encountered a girl a few times at a conbini and they would light up with a big smile when I came in, asking them out was super easy.

Call that being PUA if you want, but I call it being a healthy extroverted male.

 

[Jbagz]

PUA is just a skill set. It's the ability of knowing how to behave in front of the opposite sex to yield the best connection. You could say that the guy who doesn't walk up to ever girl say "Hi wanna fuck?" is practicing a basic tenant of PUA, or more accurately, social skills. You could make the argument that a guy who practices monogamy is unnatural, seeing as how human men are biologically programmed to have sex with several women for the purpose of creating more offspring. Even further, the idea that we learn through Disney movies and other new "social standards" are unrealistic and unnatural, and PUA is course correction for that. If guys were able to get the kind of girl(s) they wanted without any practice or training, we wouldn't need these PUA boot camps. =P

I agree and identify with this statement almost entirely.

Especially the part where you suggest that the moral and social standards portrayed in Disney films and media are often unrealistic.

In defense of film makers, they are primarily trying to entertain people and make money. Nothing wrong with that.

Where it goes horribly wrong is that so many people use the caricatures of heros and villains in films and TV comedies as a template for describing people in the real world.

Real people tend to have a number of different facets to their personalities, but if just one of their traits remotely resembles a clownish PUA raccoon from a Disney film, well you can guess what they'll be called.

It always feels like people are projecting a weird image to what PUA's actually are compared to what it actually is. =P

Back in the days when I was still a TAG lurker, I remember someone posting a video clip or website from a Tokyo based PUA guru.

I think the guy's name was Fluffer McGee (not entirely sure), but this guy embodied what many PUA detractors appear to be complaining about.

When I pursued his website, his advice was mostly sound, solid techniques for attracting women. He did focus on the aspect of the quick pickup that leads to sex that same night.

He was definitely an alpha male that wasn't humble and was on full display via his website and videos. I think many people found his web presence off-putting and the fact that he was trying to make a buck as a PUA coach.

He made me cringe a few times, but his message was spot on when it came to picking up girls.

Things like paying attention to your fashion and hygiene. Going to the gym and working out. Being confident and not being passive. He had a whole spiel on once you've got the the girl on a date about how to escalate physical contact. I could not find a flaw in the things he was telling people on how to get a woman in bed.

He was a braggart, and his online persona was probably a caricature of what he really was.

I think that is one reason many guys react negatively to PUA. People generally don't like braggarts.

Someone mentioned in another thread about TAG being unique in that it is a place where mongers and PUAs cross paths. How there is some jealousy and vitriol from mongers who often have a hard time paying for sex in Japan.

No doubt in my mind that I've seen a few jealousy fueled TAG posts. Some people are going to be bitter and throw rotten tomatoes at PUAs simply because the can't or won't go out and get a date.

BTW, does anyone know that Fluffer guy I'm talking about? He must have moved away or gotten married because his material seems to be gone. I might have his name wrong.

 

[Exnocomment]

Although I use some of the techniques that PUAs preach, I would not use that term to describe myself.

I do consider myself a student of human behavior, especially in how we communicate. I first got into paying attention to body language in a business environment, and put it to use there.

My goal was to establish dominance and persuade others at work, males included. Much of what the PUAs pay attention to can be found in the very old book, How to win friends and influence people, by Dale Carnegie. There are volumes of other books on the subject that aren't geared specifically to picking up women. I've read a few of those and actively tried to hone being a persuasive person.

At some point I did realize that I was pretty good at scoring dates with girls that I encountered in my daily life.

When in Japan I was good at getting cute cashiers at 7/11s and coffee shops to go out with me. I never approached girls on the street, my game involved laying more groundwork.

If I encountered a girl a few times at a conbini and they would light up with a big smile when I came in, asking them out was super easy.

Call that being PUA if you want, but I call it being a healthy extroverted male.

You had me!

I agree and identify with this statement almost entirely.

Especially the part where you suggest that the moral and social standards portrayed in Disney films and media are often unrealistic.

In defense of film makers, they are primarily trying to entertain people and make money. Nothing wrong with that.

Where it goes horribly wrong is that so many people use the caricatures of heros and villains in films and TV comedies as a template for describing people in the real world.

Real people tend to have a number of different facets to their personalities, but if just one of their traits remotely resembles a clownish PUA raccoon from a Disney film, well you can guess what they'll be called.



Back in the days when I was still a TAG lurker, I remember someone posting a video clip or website from a Tokyo based PUA guru.

I think the guy's name was Fluffer McGee (not entirely sure), but this guy embodied what many PUA detractors appear to be complaining about.

When I pursued his website, his advice was mostly sound, solid techniques for attracting women. He did focus on the aspect of the quick pickup that leads to sex that same night.

He was definitely an alpha male that wasn't humble and was on full display via his website and videos. I think many people found his web presence off-putting and the fact that he was trying to make a buck as a PUA coach.

He made me cringe a few times, but his message was spot on when it came to picking up girls.

Things like paying attention to your fashion and hygiene. Going to the gym and working out. Being confident and not being passive. He had a whole spiel on once you've got the the girl on a date about how to escalate physical contact. I could not find a flaw in the things he was telling people on how to get a woman in bed.

He was a braggart, and his online persona was probably a caricature of what he really was.

I think that is one reason many guys react negatively to PUA. People generally don't like braggarts.

Someone mentioned in another thread about TAG being unique in that it is a place where mongers and PUAs cross paths. How there is some jealousy and vitriol from mongers who often have a hard time paying for sex in Japan.

No doubt in my mind that I've seen a few jealousy fueled TAG posts. Some people are going to be bitter and throw rotten tomatoes at PUAs simply because the can't or won't go out and get a date.

BTW, does anyone know that Fluffer guy I'm talking about? He must have moved away or gotten married because his material seems to be gone. I might have his name wrong.

..And then you lost me!

While I too have seen significant vitriol thrown both at mongers and PUA in this forum (between and amongst both cohorts) I'm not sure I've truly seen any jealously. I would also quip that truly confident and truly poised folks probably wouldn't even notice the jealousies of those lesser folk!

PS: I have also read the book "How to make friends and influence people" - wasn't a big fan. It's too self-help like for my tastes. Light on science and heavy on motivation. I like "The Evolution of Cooperation"

 

[Jbagz]

You had me!



..And then you lost me!

While I too have seen significant vitriol thrown both at mongers and PUA in this forum (between and amongst both cohorts) I'm not sure I've truly seen any jealously. I would also quip that truly confident and truly poised folks probably wouldn't even notice the jealousies of those lesser folk!

Unfortunately I'm not some poised regal dude on a high white horse. I do notice mud slinging, since I'm in the trenches slinging it and taking hits just like everyone else.

I'm still chuckling at the post that alleged that many TAG mongers trash PUA in an attempt to "white knight" the prostitutes that post here. I think there is some truth to that, but I'm getting off point.

While I might lampoon mongers ocassionly, I'd never look upon them as lesser folk.

I too have paid for the services of a prostitute and find nothing wrong with it. I just prefer to charm my way into having sex rather than paying for it.

PS: I have also read the book "How to make friends and influence people" - wasn't a big fan. It's too self-help like for my tastes. Light on science and heavy on motivation. I like "The Evolution of Cooperation"

I haven't read it, but this description of it makes me think it isn't very relevant to making one's self more charismatic and appealing to women.

The Evolution of Cooperation

• a 1984 book by Robert Axelrod (Axelrod 1984)[1] that expanded on the paper and popularized the study.

This article is an introduction to how game theory and computer modeling are illuminating certain aspects of moral and political philosophy, particularly the role of individuals in groups, the "biology of selfishness and altruism",[2] and how cooperation can be evolutionarily advantageous.