Strategies For A Short Visit

[TheDutchElm]

Using PUA and manosphere knowledge without resorting to stupid stuff is how to go. Nobody here is recommending any of the dumbassery you seem fixated on as some kind of allergic reaction.

The constant insistence that sex is some kind of eternal, intractable war that can only be won by dominating the other person's motives is what I object to. Especially to the idea that treating women as equals (which is the core idea of modern feminist thought) is corrosive to the ability to get laid because it has figuratively castrated men. This has not been my experience and I am trying to relate that by explaining what I think is wrong with this view. The idea that it's somehow impossible to get laid without regressing to Victorian views of women as wily, fickle beasts who must be put in their place frankly strikes me as silly. Why don't you just talk to them like human beings? It'll take just as much practice as a PUA routine. You can still press an agenda for sex while being smooth about it and not mentally casting things as a confrontational game of genital Stratego. Dress and present yourself well. Solicit her opinion frequently and assert your own without mansplaining or putting her down. Make her laugh. A LOT. This is obviously easier said than done, but so is a PUA strategy. The key difference is I believe it preserves a measure of respect for the other person that is absent in the kind of gender narrative some people are endorsing here.

If you're happy with your sexual life, fine. Quit dumping on those who are trying to find a way that works for them.

My disagreement with your views is not "dumping on you" or anyone else. It's expressing an alternative view to yours: a specific view of women I think treats them as complicated objects rather than people. Even if you're only after a one-night stand, this sort of framing is (and this is my opinion) damaging to inter-sex relations. And the more important thing to realize is that *intelligent women are on to you*: they know about this PUA stuff and it doesn't work on them. I suppose how this problem is cast largely depends on who you want to fuck. If you'll just bang any self-conscious, low self-esteem mess that reacts to a PUA script, knock yourself out. I prefer a bit more substance, even with one-night stands. I suppose that's why I tend to solicit independent p4p when I do end up paying for it.

What I want to impress is that what "works" for you is not universal and depends strongly on what experience you are looking for. Despite what many PUA's assert, women and men are not generalizable to key-and-lock mechanisms and if you come away thinking that after a long stretch of being out of the dating scene, you're going to be frequently disappointed when you run through your check-list and go down in flames. I have seen this set off a cycle of bitterness in close friends that is hard to escape from.

The main things are to flip the script on the friendship/sex paradigm, be confident, realize that for every ten "No"s there's a "Yes," and move on when a woman signals that the relationship is not going where you want.

There's nothing in this statement that requires the kind of adversarial, hunter-prey tone toward women that I see in many of these posts. If you want to fuck a woman, you obviously avoid friendship language, physical and verbal and follow the general ideas and mental frame I discussed above.

You might enjoy Rollo Tomassi's The Rational Male as a manosphere blog that is not offensive.

I will do that. Thanks for the recommendation, though my brief skim so far is not reassuring.

 

[IronGiant]

Very interesting and valuable discussion, everyone.

I am wholly in accord with DutchElm's views, which are very well stated.

However, as the OP, perhaps I should note that we seem to have strayed somewhat from the original topic . . . .

Personally, I think that in any event I would not have enough time to develop much "game" between now and next Monday. However, having just been introduced to the PUA concept a couple of days ago, I believe that I will find adoption of "The Vibe" mindset, at least to a degree, to be beneficial overall. Frankly, until now my approach always has been 100% friendship, listening, compliments, asking permission, etc. Via text and email, I always would respond to women immediately, within moments, just like I do with my business clients. Now I am beginning to see that perhaps I should adopt a slightly different attitude in order to help enhance my perceived value. Oh, and the PUA advice about gradual physical escalation is helping me overcome the sheer terror that I otherwise would feel. That's all. Otherwise, I know that I will just have to treat every woman, whether she's a "1" or a "9.9," as a unique, interesting and valuable human being. I just have too much empathy to do otherwise.

I also noticed that there are apartments in Tokyo that can be rented for the week.

I wish I had thought of that. Of course, your typical "weekly mansion" is going to be a pretty dismal place to bring someone back to. I wonder what you can get in the way of a luxury apartment if you're really willing to blow a lot of money.

 

[TheDutchElm]

Frankly, until now my approach always has been 100% friendship, listening, compliments, asking permission, etc. Via text and email, I always would respond to women immediately, within moments, just like I do with my business clients. Now I am beginning to see that perhaps I should adopt a slightly different attitude in order to help enhance my perceived value.

I entirely agree with your change of strategy. It is entirely fair to be extremely clear about what you want in both behavior and rhetoric. Listening and compliments are always welcome to women, but you have to remember you are not a sounding board for the woman you're sexually interested in. Expressing your own agency and opinions is attractive (provided you don't ride roughshod over their own). Women do tend to work out their problems and dissatisfactions by talking about them (they don't want or need advice to resolve conflict), so being that sounding-board misdirects your perceived role from potential sexual partner to friend. I don't believe in the concept of being "friend zoned" because it's an externalization of an internal problem. If you are friends with a woman you intended to fuck all along, you have miscalculated (not to mention been rather dishonest). I recall one of my favorite quotes: women aren't sex vending machines that you put friend coins into until sex falls out. If you expect that at a later date, she's likely to react very badly since you cast yourself in one role but expected another to result. If you want sex, pursue sex as the goal. Just make sure early on that you're pursuing someone with the values that makes that a likely outcome.

There. I think I've finally written something everyone in this thread can agree on.

 

[TheDutchElm]

I wish I had thought of that. Of course, your typical "weekly mansion" is going to be a pretty dismal place to bring someone back to. I wonder what you can get in the way of a luxury apartment if you're really willing to blow a lot of money.

Do you have an airbnb.com account? Tokyo rentals there are quite reasonable. You can get a much better deal than a hotel, and often an entire apartment to yourself. I have seen some truly amazing places available for $100-150 a night and if you're budget minded you can beat that by quite a ways.

 

[Solong]

The thing I find ridiculous about the "manosphere" is the assertion that if one is not a male supermodel or rich as hell, the only way to get reliably laid is to treat women like machines that have to be programmed to drop their panties. I'm sure it works some of the time (probably more often with women who have low self esteem or live in a culture that undervalues them), but since you mention Marxism, the dialectic tone of the entire PUA argument seems strangely familiar- it's dogmatic. If you didn't score, you didn't do XYZ hard enough/smooth enough/well enough. Nevermind the possibility that an intelligent woman will see through your mechanistic negging and painfully scripted body language.

Every time I hear this, it sounds like marketing for PUA guides to make guys with zero game think they can work any woman like a sudoku puzzle and wake up next to her. Ain't gonna happen.

And just as a disclaimer (since it seems to come up frequently), I am not impinging on anyone's right to give their opinion by stating this. I'm merely expressing my own. We just happen to disagree. Strongly.

1) It appears you have an opinion on PUA where it's only a specific set way, when instead there are many numerous methods and styles.

This comes from not having any deeper knowledge of the art. It's like a person that has a negative opinion of Martial Arts because they only saw a few Tae Kwon Do demonstrations, where there are hundreds of DIFFERENT styles they have no idea about. From Boxing, Kickboxing, Wrestling, to Jiu Jitsu...

2) PUA is simply methods and styles of which how it looks, works, and feels depends on the guy AND his level of experience.

3) It's ultimately and the reality is it's a numbers game

Among the many measures of success (which depends on the guy) is the improvement of his success rate with women. Instead of hitting 1 out of 10, getting to 3 out of 10 can be great. While others may say that's dismal, that's 3X BETTER than what he has done in the past.

It can be the guy could only score with 5s and 6s. But now has the confidence and pulls 8s and 9s, so that is success.

Success is whatever the guy himself defines it as, not what 1 single style of PUA says it must be.

 

[Solong]

Also, I want to point out that there is nothing in mainstream feminism that asserts that men can't be proactive in approaching women (women by-and-large ARE more passive and prefer to be approached). However, "proactive" doesn't mean harassing women on the subway. Or in a dark alley. Or in an otherwise empty hotel elevator at 4am. Those may be extreme examples, but the point is this: butting in when it should be clear that your advances are not welcome is not "proactive". It's rude and frequently threatening.

Imagine if everywhere you went, gay men constantly hit on you while you were trying to get on with your life and you'll have some idea how annoying this constant PUA crap can be for women. There is a time and a place for casual hook-ups. But the extent to which a lot of PUAs take these techniques ("watch my YouTube video where I harass these women in the park and get them to smile nervously! See? It's easy!") is ridiculous and contributes to female distrust of men in general.

The term harassment is very subjective and loaded. It simply depends on the guy and woman involved. However, harassment is usually more in the context of the work place, study, or an activity one is practicing on (like say Golf). I think that's the context of where pickup can be inappropriate.

Outside the context of work, study, or practice we are talking bothersome or annoying, not necessarily harassment.

We must also consider the OTHER END of the spectrum, where a woman is being anti-social, arrogant, or overly sensitive.

To such a woman, a guy beneath their level who says just "hello" in a bar, is harassment or annoying. "How dare such a ugly/old/fat/geek approach me." That's not so much about harassment, as it's about women who are arrogant and snobbish

How you define where pickup is appropriate, would be in the same context of approaching the same sex. Is it wrong to say hello to another guy or another woman in the subway or park?

Saying hello in a public space, is OK. For me to get defensive about that, says more about my anti-social mindset than about the person approaching me.

Guys that are being annoying or threatening, are usually NOT PUAs, but untrained butt head types with NO GAME, who wish they could get a woman they are seeing and want her to just acknowledge he exists. Like a dirty construction worker whistling at hot women walking by.

A person that is good at or understands PUA, knows his goal is NOT to threaten or annoy women, he insteads wants to befriend them and make them comfortable. If he comes of as threatening or annoying on average (as each woman is different) then he is doing it WRONG.

Fundamentally, PUA is also about the art of conversation and friendliness. Talking to women and being friendly is perfectly very sociable and appropriate. In many cases and MOST women, with a GOOD PUA, will feel BETTER about themselves and complimented by the interaction.

Note- All guys talking to and doing well with women aren't specifically PUAs. You have the term naturals, swingers, and smooth talkers too. Where they might not know PUA technique or lingo specifically, but figured methods and a style out on their own.

 

[TheDutchElm]

The term harassment is very subjective and loaded. It simply depends on the guy and woman involved. However, harassment is usually more in the context of the work place, study, or an activity one is practicing on (like say Golf). I think that's the context of where pickup can be inappropriate.

It's quite simple. If the person approached is uncomfortable or doesn't want the attention and you continue to persist, it's harassment.

To such a woman, a guy beneath their level who says just "hello" in a bar, is harassment or annoying. "How dare such a ugly/old/fat/geek approach me." That's not so much about harassment, as it's arrogance.

Or maybe she's just not that into you. People don't only go to bars to fuck or get fucked. I think the general advice (which you've stated previously) is to move on. Casting the behavior as arrogance is more a reflection on the person taking offense and feeling inferior. You are awfully quick to attribute sinister motives to the woman for simply rejecting someone she's not interested in talking to. Assuming she's interested in talking to *anyone* at that moment.

Saying hello in a public space, is OK. For me to get defensive about that, says more about my anti-social mindset than about the person approaching me.

It's not about saying hello. It's about aggressive approach in situations where extended conversation with a stranger are unwelcome. Again, that is the prerogative of the person being approached. People with common sense and an understanding of the everyday caution women need to exercise understand this. If someone doesn't, it would behoove them to learn. Maybe ask a woman her opinion and not devolve into "who's to say what's appropriate?"

Guys that are being annoying or threatening, are usually NOT PUAs, but untrained butt head types with NO GAME, who wish they could get a woman they are seeing and want her to just acknowledge he exists. Like a dirty construction worker whistling at hot women walking by.

Guys that are being annoying or threatening, are usually NOT PUAs, but untrained butt head types with NO GAME, who wish they could get a woman they are seeing and want her to just acknowledge he exists. Like a dirty construction worker whistling at hot women walking by.

A person that is good at or understands PUA, knows his goal is NOT to threaten or annoy women, he insteads wants to befriend them and make them comfortable. If he comes of as threatening or annoying on average (as each woman is different) then he is doing it WRONG.

This is rationalizing. Basically you're saying that if the girl is annoyed or threatened, you're just bad at pick up. I've heard the same thing when religious demagogues say God didn't answer your prayer because you didn't pray hard enough or give enough money to the church. This is dogmatic thinking which doesn't consider the position of the targeted person.

Fundamentally, PUA is also about the art of conversation and friendliness. Talking to women and being friendly is perfectly very sociable and appropriate. In many cases and most women will feel better about themselves and complimented by the interaction.

If that's all it was, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's not. There is a mountain of armchair psychology that aims to disassemble the purported motives (most of them sinister and anti-male) of women in what I think is a hyper-conservative social framework that imbues neither sex with agency. It's sex "on rails" as far as I see it: everyone's operating under the same motivations, "so here's what ya gotta do to break through all that aggravating feminine obfuscation". I think that ignores the wide range of variation among men and women.

 

[TheDutchElm]

This is how I see charges of harassment: "I'm not attracted to this guy. Ewwwww! Icky! Let us call in the law to handle it."

Don't be ridiculous. Being rejected is not harassment. Continued advancement AFTER being rejected IS harassment.

 

[Solong]

This is how I see charges of harassment: "I'm not attracted to this guy. Ewwwww! Icky! Let us call in the law to handle it."

I'm a manager, so overly trained on what harassment in the workplace is.

A key component is REPEATEDLY approaching the same woman who has made it verbally CLEAR, that the behavior, comments, or invitation is unwanted or offensive.

Asking a woman out, as long as you are not her supervisor or it isn't specifically forbidden, isn't harassment.

With that in mind, talking to or having a friendly conversation with woman in a public space, is not harassment. Unless your are impeding her movement, touching her, insulting her, or she has made it clear that she would like to be left alone.

As mentioned, we need to distinguish what is anti-social or snobbish behavior by women, as much as what is harassment by men. Because there is a comfortable middle ground where people meet and are friendly to each other.

 

[TheDutchElm]

As mentioned, we need to distinguish what is anti-social behavior by women, as much as what is harassment by men. Because there is a comfortable middle ground where people meet and are friendly to each other.

Maybe this is where the disconnect lies: women don't owe you social, friendly behavior when you approach them. And you don't owe it to them either if and when they approach you. But you and they DO owe each other an environment free from harassment.

 

[GoldenDalton]

The thing I find ridiculous about the "manosphere" is the assertion that if one is not a male supermodel or rich as hell, the only way to get reliably laid is to treat women like machines that have to be programmed to drop their panties. I'm sure it works some of the time (probably more often with women who have low self esteem or live in a culture that undervalues them), but since you mention Marxism, the dialectic tone of the entire PUA argument seems strangely familiar- it's dogmatic. If you didn't score, you didn't do XYZ hard enough/smooth enough/well enough. Nevermind the possibility that an intelligent woman will see through your mechanistic negging and painfully scripted body language.

Every time I hear this, it sounds like marketing for PUA guides to make guys with zero game think they can work any woman like a sudoku puzzle and wake up next to her. Ain't gonna happen.

And just as a disclaimer (since it seems to come up frequently), I am not impinging on anyone's right to give their opinion by stating this. I'm merely expressing my own. We just happen to disagree. Strongly.

The "technique" side of it is not familiar to me.

What it provides though is honesty about what 90 percent of women aged 18-3" want in western societies, which is a hyper- masculine man.

Culture in Anglo cultures does not undervalue women in the slightest. It massively caters to women as a preferred victim class.

The pua techniques may or may not work. I don't know, but the underlying philosophy is true.

 

[GoldenDalton]

Using PUA and manosphere knowledge without resorting to stupid stuff is how to go. Nobody here is recommending any of the dumbassery you seem fixated on as some kind of allergic reaction.

Negging and douchebag game is laughable, especially in Japan, but it has been demonstrated to work in some circumstances--for example mob parties in Ibiza or similar party/carnival/spring break situations.

If you're happy with your sexual life, fine. Quit dumping on those who are trying to find a way that works for them, or using terms to shorthand or package complicated terms that would take paragraphs to explain in regular language.

The main things are to flip the script on the friendship before sex paradigm, be confident, realize that for every ten "No"s there's a "Yes," see yourself as a prize, stop seeing sex as sacred, and move on when a woman signals that the relationship is not going where you want.

You might enjoy Rollo Tomassi's The Rational Male as a manosphere blog that is not offensive.

The last two paragraphs echo how I feel exactly.

 

[TheDutchElm]

Hahahahahah now you're calling a differing opinion ridiculous? Come now sir let us differ like men.

"I have an opinion" is not a validation of that opinion. There is a legal definition of harassment that Solong has accurately pointed out. Too often around here, a difference of fact or defensibility of an opinion is recast as repressing expression. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

What it provides though is honesty about what 90 percent of women aged 18-3" want in western societies, which is a hyper- masculine man.

Culture in Anglo cultures does not undervalue women in the slightest. It massively caters to women as a preferred victim class.

Which is just the narrative you'd expect from a culture of frustrated men who think they're not getting the play they're owed.

At any rate, I think we've strayed far enough from IronGiant's OP, so once again, I'm ejecting.

 

[Solong]

Don't be ridiculous. Being rejected is not harassment. Continued advancement AFTER being rejected IS harassment.

We are in agreement on this point. Where repeatedly or trying to continue after being rejected or the woman has made it clear that she is uncomfortable, is harassment.

Where we appear to disagree, is that you seem to consider even APPROACHING or talking to women, even in a public space, as harassment.

This looks anti-social and is possibly paranoia, where everyone around is perceived as a threat.

Not even talking men and women. Nothing wrong with friendly conversations with new people. Makes the world a better, friendly, and more comfortable place.

 

[GoldenDalton]

It's quite simple. If the person approached is uncomfortable or doesn't want the attention and you continue to persist, it's harassment.




Or maybe she's just not that into you. People don't only go to bars to fuck or get fucked. I think the general advice (which you've stated previously) is to move on. Casting the behavior as arrogance is more a reflection on the person taking offense and feeling inferior. You are awfully quick to attribute sinister motives to the woman for simply rejecting someone she's not interested in talking to. Assuming she's interested in talking to *anyone* at that moment.



It's not about saying hello. It's about aggressive approach in situations where extended conversation with a stranger are unwelcome. Again, that is the prerogative of the person being approached. People with common sense and an understanding of the everyday caution women need to exercise understand this. If someone doesn't, it would behoove them to learn. Maybe ask a woman her opinion and not devolve into "who's to say what's appropriate?"





This is rationalizing. Basically you're saying that if the girl is annoyed or threatened, you're just bad at pick up. I've heard the same thing when religious demagogues say God didn't answer your prayer because you didn't pray hard enough or give enough money to the church. This is dogmatic thinking which doesn't consider the position of the targeted person.



If that's all it was, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's not. There is a mountain of armchair psychology that aims to disassemble the purported motives (most of them sinister and anti-male) of women in what I think is a hyper-conservative social framework that imbues neither sex with agency. It's sex "on rails" as far as I see it: everyone's operating under the same motivations, "so here's what ya gotta do to break through all that aggravating feminine obfuscation". I think that ignores the wide range of variation among men and women.

There is a sociology to sex, and there isn't "wide variation" among men and women. Women who are attractive and young in the U.S. tend the prefer the same qualities in men. Women approaching the wall are different from younger women, but they are still very similar to one another in their desires.

"PUA" as I understand it can really be boiled down to two principles:

1. Be an assertive, masculine man.

2. Look at what people do rather than what they say, to determine truth.

 

[GoldenDalton]

This looks anti-social and is possibly paranoia, where everyone around is perceived as a threat.

Try being a professor on a college campus in Canada/U.S./Australia/New Zealand, and seeing the extreme anti-male sexuality crowd enact vicious policy agree policy, and standing up for young guys only to get fired.

My contract was dropped on a tenure track job because of a similar case: the young man was in no way guilty of sexual assault.

But when you have a coalition of physically and mentally decrepit leftists, combined with those resentful over other guys having sex, you get these kinds of totalitarian policies.

 

[GoldenDalton]

Also I forgot to mention- for me the underlying thesis of the " manosphere" is this; it's ok for guys to sow their oats and have as much consensual sex as possible, with as many women as possible, without being labeled " predatory" by the sour groups feminists/ lower ranked men.

That in itself is important for all young men in western nations.

 

[TheDutchElm]

Where we appear to disagree, is that you seem to consider even APPROACHING or talking to women, even in a public space, as harassment.

I said nothing of the sort. However, there are public spaces where approach is inappropriate and men need to recognize these situations by using their freaking brains, with which they are amply imbued to do. You can talk to whomever you want in public, but you don't have a right to expect the same response just because you're in a public space. It is willfully ignorant to assume any approach in a public space automatically doesn't constitute a perceived threat just because it doesn't meet the legal definition of harassment.

I regret even bringing all this up in retrospect, because it distracts from IronGiant's request for help. But it's just getting tiring seeing these conversations drift into theories of sinister female motivations rather than focusing on how to talk to women in ways they will respond to positively.

 

[Solong]

For which I am glad, for your advice is obfuscatorial and hamstringing.

The plain fact of the matter is this: If I find a woman sufficiently attractive in the public space I'll approach her. A woman has no right to assume that she will not be approached and she absolutely will be judged based on her ability to be a decent human being.

That is all. Welcome to equality, where nothing is given for free, and everything must be earned.

I think white knighting and feminism are factors here, where it's perceived that a woman can't even be disturbed or inconvenienced by a man in any way. "How dare you talk to me!" Or, as if women were so delicate that a mere word would break them.

Equality, means the same measure used for men in a public space, is also acceptable for women.

If a woman or man approached me to say hello and chat a bit, I wouldn't be offended by just the approach. If anything, if done well, it would make me happy or it could turn out to be a good friendship. And there are many heterosexual women that say it makes their day to be approached and complimented by a man. It's in the style and WAY in which it's done. It's about being friendly.

And if someone approached me in a friendly manner, and I was inappropriately mean and nasty, that's a reflection on me and not them. Women don't have a special right to be anti-social and snobbish. Where have our manners gone and why do we have them? Friendliness, respect, and being cordial in the public space is important to society.

 

[TheDutchElm]

Also I forgot to mention- for me the underlying thesis of the " manosphere" is this; it's ok for guys to sow their oats and have as much consensual sex as possible, with as many women as possible, without being labeled " predatory" by the sour groups feminists/ lower ranked men.

And I would agree with that first part. In fact I think most feminists would agree with that first part. The problem comes with the accusation in the second part. The valid criticisms of PUA are a criticism of the view that each gender needs to have their insecurities and set-in-stone genetic foibles picked apart and exploited for men to get laid because women *as a gender* are stingy gate-keepers. Maybe in the hyper-conservative gender relational world of the redpill adherents, this is true. But it is not universal. This seems like an exercise in gender essentialism that goes beyond what I think is reasonable. I'm not a believer in this interpretation of interacting with women and I still get laid because I don't go after women who think like that. And I'm not a supermodel millionaire. Ergo, my beef with expounding on this particular view of gender relations rather than solely giving behavioral advice on what you've found works.

 

[Solong]

Ergo, my beef with expounding on this particular view of gender relations rather than solely giving behavioral advice on what you've found works.

But that's the point. Various guys are giving behavioral advice on what they have seen work, but because it appears to align with PUA, you seem to take offense to it. I'm not even specifically PUA, but in the swinger camp.

Maybe accept the possibility that different styles or methods of PUA have proven to work for other men. And that all methods and styles of PUA aren't the same.

 

[GoldenDalton]

And I would agree with that first part. In fact I think most feminists would agree with that first part. The problem comes with the accusation in the second part. The valid criticisms of PUA are a criticism of the view that each gender needs to have their insecurities and set-in-stone genetic foibles picked apart and exploited for men to get laid because women *as a gender* are stingy gate-keepers. Maybe in the hyper-conservative gender relational world of the redpill adherents, this is true. But it is not universal. This seems like an exercise in gender essentialism that goes beyond what I think is reasonable. I'm not a believer in this interpretation of interacting with women and I still get laid because I don't go after women who think like that. And I'm not a supermodel millionaire. Ergo, my beef with expounding on this particular view of gender relations rather than solely giving behavioral advice on what you've found works.

But " genders" are absolutely essential.

If PUA is false, then the criticisms are ironically invalid because it wouldn't work. What sets people off is that sociobiology is truth- five decades of the worst sort slander by leftists and attempts to associate sociobiology with Hitler, Mussolini, and Jafar haven't been able to squash it. Edie sulky now the the human genome is being unraveled.

But I don't see what is possibly exploitative at all about this. Having abs, walking with good posture, dressing smartly, none of that is exploitative. Neither is assuming a dominant, masculine frame. That's natural for me, and I think did mist men, once the smokescreen of feminine is removed.

On a side note, I do admire your being willing to discuss this despite bring outnumbered. Usually it's me being outnumbered by leftists/ feminists/ statists.

 

[TheDutchElm]

And if someone approached me in a friendly manner, and I was inappropriately mean and nasty, that's a reflection on me and not them. Women don't have a special right to be anti-social and snobbish. Where have our manners gone and why do we have them? Friendliness, respect, and being cordial in the public space is important to society.

Let's be clear that we're not talking about being approached in the park to inquire as to the time of day. Appearing in public is not an invitation to ANY activity another person wishes to impose. It's one thing to give a stranger the time and quite another to engage in a conversation that, let's be frank, most women comprehend the aim of.

Men disproportionately do most of the hitting on. That in itself isn't a bad thing. But once again I invite you to imagine a scenario where you're constantly approached by gay men who "just want to have a little chit-chat" when you have a pretty good sense of their angle.

 

[Solong]

You can talk to whomever you want in public, but you don't have a right to expect the same response just because you're in a public space. It is willfully ignorant to assume any approach in a public space automatically doesn't constitute a perceived threat just because it doesn't meet the legal definition of harassment.

I regret even bringing all this up in retrospect, because it distracts from IronGiant's request for help. But it's just getting tiring seeing these conversations drift into theories of sinister female motivations rather than focusing on how to talk to women in ways they will respond to positively.

1) Any good PUA doesn't expect all women to respond positively or as expected to his approaches.

It's more that he starts a conversation and sees where it goes.

2) I haven't seen where advocates of PUA have defined the motivation of all women as sinister.

And women, just like men, can indeed be sinister. Treating women equally, means also holding them accountable for their actions too. All women are not fairy good girl princesses either.

3) Good PUAs will often get good responses from women, more often than not.

There is a disconnect here, where it's not understood that a PUA is not trying to anger or upset a woman. Good PUAs want positive responses to his approaches and his methods will ADAPT until he is getting better.

 

[TheDutchElm]

But " genders" are absolutely essential.

If PUA is false, then the criticisms are ironically invalid because it wouldn't work. What sets people off is that sociobiology is truth- five decades of the worst sort slander by leftists and attempts to associate sociobiology with Hitler, Mussolini, and Jafar haven't been able to squash it. Edie sulky now the the human genome is being unraveled.

That's a bit of an equivocation. I'm not implying that gender isn't a meaningful concept (though gender-queer and gender unaffiliated people do exist despite their genetic sex).

PUA asserts a universal gender essentialism as its basis for behavior in heterosexual interactions, but although it does work (I've admitted as much earlier), it doesn't always work or even MOSTLY work. A 10-30% pull rate is not a strategy that speaks to essential gendered qualities when the other 70-90% of encounters with women are failures. What's up with those women if the gender essentialism of PUA is true?

There have been specious associations between sociobiology and history's demons from both the left and the right. I find that more of this comes from the far right nowadays to be honest. Mostly because we're actually getting GOOD at biology and human behavior, but the right wants to avoid any implication that human beings might not have essential control over every conscious thought that enters their heads (c.f., homophobes getting erections when you show them gay porn...lol). But I'll concede that point since there is still a sizable vocal left that wants to go entirely the other way and assert that every person is a blank slate: an equally false assertion. There are biological differences between men and women that we cannot ignore. I simply think that PUA takes this to an extreme form of armchair philosophy in an effort to contend that it has all the answers that will turn you into an adonis at the bar. And it's a view that I find curiously hostile to mainstream feminism when my experiences with women have spanned a wide range of attitudes rather than what is monolithically asserted by PUA as some kind of super-selective penis repellant.