I have read the Game(well skimmed) and the part about excercises to meet girl(standing on a corner saying hi to random girls) is not that bad. Thats because it look like its been taken right out of a text-book about how to overcome social fear(anexity?).
Its the same stuff: confront your fears, start small, think up a scenario and follow trough. It differs in that the end goals are different(get laid vs getting to know people). It also differs in that PUA teachers and Shrinks have vastly different ethical standards.
So my advice? Go with the shrinks.
Is a shrink going to go to the club with you? There is a difference in knowing what you should do and doing it without stumbling. Part of the appeal to have a PUA wing/teacher is that when it comes time to act they are there to prod you on and boost your confidence. And if you fail they should tell you what you did well and what you can improve apon.
How to Win Friends and influence people is not a pick up book
it is a good collection of anecdotes and examples of basic social skills. Stuff that seems like common sense when you read it but might not thing about yourself
Oh bullshit. It's totally a fucking pick up book. It's also the things you said. Just change all the situations from office to sleazy night club, and now its a pick-up book.
Thats kind of the point I was trying to make. All of these skills are very real (again, not into the PUA community I'm sure there is bullshit in there), but the context and setting in which you learn them is key to how you use them and how "evil" the purpose is.
So here's a question. Most PUA's claim that the skills they teach you are skills most normally socialized people learned while growing up and thus they are just bringing you up to level the playing field. Is it "evil" for someone to use these types of skills in the club/bar/street/store/etc even if they don't know they are using them since they learned them naturally while growing up?
How to Win Friends and influence people is not a pick up book
it is a good collection of anecdotes and examples of basic social skills. Stuff that seems like common sense when you read it but might not thing about yourself
Oh bullshit. It's totally a fucking pick up book. It's also the things you said. Just change all the situations from office to sleazy night club, and now its a pick-up book.
Thats kind of the point I was trying to make. All of these skills are very real (again, not into the PUA community I'm sure there is bullshit in there), but the context and setting in which you learn them is key to how you use them and how "evil" the purpose is.
So here's a question. Most PUA's claim that the skills they teach you are skills most normally socialized people learned while growing up and thus they are just bringing you up to level the playing field. Is it "evil" for someone to use these types of skills in the club/bar/street/store/etc even if they don't know they are using them since they learned them naturally while growing up?
Welcome to nature vs nurture with a smidgen of the importance of intent.
You may want to take this to the philosophy thread.
How to Win Friends and influence people is not a pick up book
it is a good collection of anecdotes and examples of basic social skills. Stuff that seems like common sense when you read it but might not thing about yourself
Oh bullshit. It's totally a fucking pick up book. It's also the things you said. Just change all the situations from office to sleazy night club, and now its a pick-up book.
Thats kind of the point I was trying to make. All of these skills are very real (again, not into the PUA community I'm sure there is bullshit in there), but the context and setting in which you learn them is key to how you use them and how "evil" the purpose is.
So here's a question. Most PUA's claim that the skills they teach you are skills most normally socialized people learned while growing up and thus they are just bringing you up to level the playing field. Is it "evil" for someone to use these types of skills in the club/bar/street/store/etc even if they don't know they are using them since they learned them naturally while growing up?
Welcome to nature vs nurture with a smidgen of the importance of intent.
You may want to take this to the philosophy thread.
I'd say it wholly depends on what they are using their skilz for in the club/bar/street/store/etc regardless of whether or not they know they are using them.
I despise a lot of things about the PUA method. The mentality, the practice - but the people who do it I hold no grudge against because by people using it and it existing I am put in a position where I can further examine the construct of social interactions among people and try to evaluate and center myself such that I am not too assuming or imposing or meek or anything of that nature.
However, I hardly ever go out and I tend to never really flirt or look for a relationship these days, anyway. But, if people think this stuff is what they need to get what they want, then so be it. And as ol' Colin Moriarty says, information is a service and it costs. Some people are just douches and want your money for shit that is not all that secret.
...also, hoo boy, I kind of feel sorry for Gabe after reading the front page. "Men have nothing women want"? Like yourself more, dude.
Yeah. I mean, what use is a vagina without a willy?
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
i find it repellent.
i was the very definition of a nervous anxious guy, so dont give me any shit about not being able to relate.
i was bullied heavily for most of my school years, for one. people were enemies.
but the people involved, well, it depends on the person doesnt it. i aint gonna judge a whole grouping of people based on what they like. most of them are being manipulated into learning how to manipulate and the justifications for it are similarly indoctrinated. i read something like that once too, a long time ago.
i just got lucky: the things that people picked on me for ended up being the things people later liked me for.
i had good friends.
but overal, i think its repellent, backwards and "its better than nothing" isn't a good enough reason not to nuke the whole thing from orbit. just to be sure.
i would shed no tears if pua vanished, is what im saying.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
meeting people is often incredibly difficult for people, actually. y'all don't get to single yourselves out as special over this.
I would argue that females have a significantly easier time approaching males for the purposes of a relationship than males
That belief is, ultimately, built on every bit of culture that sabotages easy-relationship-building.
We suppose women should have an easier time because: guys always want women, we can't get enough! Any woman! But women have an easier time approaching men because it's so rarely done, for they are frigid and see no need for sloppery men and their big penises. But if they do approach men, then that means they're not normal, but the slutty horny sort of woman, and blah blah blah.
It's supposedly easy for women because men are sex-starved beasts and women couldn't give a shit less about the most disgusting invention of the early seventies. Right?
I have read the Game(well skimmed) and the part about excercises to meet girl(standing on a corner saying hi to random girls) is not that bad. Thats because it look like its been taken right out of a text-book about how to overcome social fear(anexity?).
Its the same stuff: confront your fears, start small, think up a scenario and follow trough. It differs in that the end goals are different(get laid vs getting to know people). It also differs in that PUA teachers and Shrinks have vastly different ethical standards.
So my advice? Go with the shrinks.
Is a shrink going to go to the club with you? There is a difference in knowing what you should do and doing it without stumbling. Part of the appeal to have a PUA wing/teacher is that when it comes time to act they are there to prod you on and boost your confidence. And if you fail they should tell you what you did well and what you can improve apon.
Is a PUA wing/teacher going to have your best interest at heart? Do they want you to have healthy relationships with other people? Do they want you to see women as people, not objects? Do they even want to cure you of your problem at all?
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
So here's a question. Most PUA's claim that the skills they teach you are skills most normally socialized people learned while growing up and thus they are just bringing you up to level the playing field. Is it "evil" for someone to use these types of skills in the club/bar/street/store/etc even if they don't know they are using them since they learned them naturally while growing up?
I don't know anybody who learned shit like this growing up (all from wiki):
"Negs," i.e. remarks, such as backhanded compliments, that are designed to actively demonstrate lack of interest and "falsely disqualify" the pickup artists as potential suitors or, more commonly, to tentatively disqualify the target. Negs are generally advocated for attractive and very attractive women. They are intended for numerous purposes, including slightly lowering a girl’s self-esteem so she’s more vulnerable to pickup, displaying higher value, opening a tension loop, making it appear that the PUA is not seeking approval, framing the PUA as the prize in the interaction the target needs to win over, or for lowering a girl’s "bitch shield" (i.e. hostile attitude to potential suitors), etc. (associated with the Mystery Method)
Patterns, i.e. hypnotic language derived from sales and NLP designed to influence a woman's subconscious mind, to seduce her, or to otherwise condition her without her knowledge. Patterning can be done spontaneously though is usually completely scripted in advance. (promulgated by Ross Jeffries, Major Mark, Bishop, and many others)
"AMOG destroyers," (or "AMOGing," "AMOG tactics") i.e. dealing with competing males in the group with backhanded compliments or subtle jibes, such as picking an item of clothing they are wearing and making fun of them for it. "AMOG" stands for "Alpha Male Other Guy (or Alpha Male of Group)," and "AMOG" can also be used as a verb: to "AMOG" someone. AMOG destroyers are designed to establish oneself as the dominant person in the group. A lot of AMOGing comes from simply not acknowledging the other person.(Originally developed by Owen Cook)
Seriously, stuff like this is a world apart from the sort of things that Geckahn posted, which is mostly under the field of traditional etiquette and simple good manners.
How to Win Friends and influence people is not a pick up book
it is a good collection of anecdotes and examples of basic social skills. Stuff that seems like common sense when you read it but might not thing about yourself
Oh bullshit. It's totally a fucking pick up book. It's also the things you said. Just change all the situations from office to sleazy night club, and now its a pick-up book.
Thats kind of the point I was trying to make. All of these skills are very real (again, not into the PUA community I'm sure there is bullshit in there), but the context and setting in which you learn them is key to how you use them and how "evil" the purpose is.
So here's a question. Most PUA's claim that the skills they teach you are skills most normally socialized people learned while growing up and thus they are just bringing you up to level the playing field. Is it "evil" for someone to use these types of skills in the club/bar/street/store/etc even if they don't know they are using them since they learned them naturally while growing up?
Welcome to nature vs nurture with a smidgen of the importance of intent.
You may want to take this to the philosophy thread.
I'd say it wholly depends on what they are using their skilz for in the club/bar/street/store/etc regardless of whether or not they know they are using them.
Yes, it's all about intent. Are you going into a bar, intentionally misrepresenting yourself, and trying to hook up with a chick so you can bang her and then leave? You're a cockwad.
Are you at a party with a cute girl, trying to be extra attentive and talking about her interests because you like her and want to get to know her better? You're a decent bloke, even though you're probably using a lot of the same skills as the other guy.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I have read the Game(well skimmed) and the part about excercises to meet girl(standing on a corner saying hi to random girls) is not that bad. Thats because it look like its been taken right out of a text-book about how to overcome social fear(anexity?).
Its the same stuff: confront your fears, start small, think up a scenario and follow trough. It differs in that the end goals are different(get laid vs getting to know people). It also differs in that PUA teachers and Shrinks have vastly different ethical standards.
So my advice? Go with the shrinks.
Is a shrink going to go to the club with you? There is a difference in knowing what you should do and doing it without stumbling. Part of the appeal to have a PUA wing/teacher is that when it comes time to act they are there to prod you on and boost your confidence. And if you fail they should tell you what you did well and what you can improve apon.
Is a PUA wing/teacher going to have your best interest at heart? Do they want you to have healthy relationships with other people? Do they want you to see women as people, not objects? Do they even want to cure you of your problem at all?
I guess I'd say that depends on the PUA. I'd agree that a shrink is a better choice, but I'd imagine that a lot of guys with low self esteem would like that shrink to be with them when they are trying to implement the advice in a social situation.
EDIT: Just to be clear I'm completely agreeing that intent is the key. I've met plenty of guys at the bar that have never heard of PUA's but are still tools who use PUA like skills they've naturally learned from years of trying to sleep with women.
Went and watched The Ugly Truth a few weeks ago. Saw that forum drama yesterday, and this morning Comedy Central had a movie very similar to The Ugly Truth playing this morning.
With that said...
Pickup artists are losers. Instead of working on their personality and gaining aspects that might be desirable, pickup artists are trained to be social rejects and assholes.
Does it work?
Yeah.
In a sense. Being a jerkwad to women tends to pick up women. Emotionally unstable, confused, or jaded women.
Why do pickup artists complain about women? Because the women they target, the women that they hone their skills for, people that respond when derided and insulted, are at their core damaged. Not all women are damaged. The ones they target are. Then they paint an entire brush across the entire gender.
"Oh, well, that hot blond chick who that slept with me because I was emotionally and physically abusive is crazy man!" Of course she's crazy. She responds to emotional and physical abuse. Even if the abuse is directed towards the "competition", anyone who sees that and wouldn't expect the same type of treatment when the relationship isn't going "perfectly" is retarded.
One of the big divides in PUA is the issue of "monogamy". Some find it out dated. But again, considering they've yet to find, and don't know how to find, a woman that they can marry, their opinions on monogamy aren't really worth the styling gel these losers employ.
You even have to question the mindset of some of the more flagrant pickup artists and wonder what type of upbringing they had.
As mentioned above, it's about intent. If you read a book that tells you to be on the initiative, courteous, and interesting, that's one thing. But most PUA literative I've glossed over consisted of instructions on being an asshole.
There's a difference.
EDIT
As for that post yesterday, it's pretty obvious that what Gabe was talking about and the actual subject at hand were two completely different things.
EDIT II
Also, in this post of mine, I'm referring specifically to the most egregious example, which from anecdotal experience over the years, out number any "wingman" or whatever.
Could be the fact that I live in MS.
But I've also never heard of PUA referred to anyone other than the major jerkwads.
However, the reason I started to read the book is because although the execution of these guys is wrong they do have a point - one that Gabe made too, meeting girls can be incredibly difficult for guys. Essentially, though most people subscribe to ideas of equality i'd argue that in most situations were strangers meet the onus is on the man to make an initial move. This means that women have the right to say yes or no and not have that impact upon their self esteem.
I know this isn't the absolute iron cast way of things but in general at least men are putting themselves out there and risk emotional discomfort
Here's the thing though - it's a passive vs aggressive thing. In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
Jhianna on
0
Options
HalfmexI mock your value systemYou also appear foolish in the eyes of othersRegistered Userregular
I don't know anybody who learned shit like this growing up (all from wiki):
"Negs," i.e. remarks, such as backhanded compliments, that are designed to actively demonstrate lack of interest and "falsely disqualify" the pickup artists as potential suitors or, more commonly, to tentatively disqualify the target. Negs are generally advocated for attractive and very attractive women. They are intended for numerous purposes, including slightly lowering a girl’s self-esteem so she’s more vulnerable to pickup, displaying higher value, opening a tension loop, making it appear that the PUA is not seeking approval, framing the PUA as the prize in the interaction the target needs to win over, or for lowering a girl’s "bitch shield" (i.e. hostile attitude to potential suitors), etc. (associated with the Mystery Method)
This one I think many people did growing up, though on a much more simplistic level. It's the whole "he's mean to you because he likes you" bit from grade school. I can't speak for anyone else, but it was pretty common in my elementary years. This just seems like a more advanced (though no more mature) version of that.
Patterns, i.e. hypnotic language derived from sales and NLP designed to influence a woman's subconscious mind, to seduce her, or to otherwise condition her without her knowledge. Patterning can be done spontaneously though is usually completely scripted in advance. (promulgated by Ross Jeffries, Major Mark, Bishop, and many others)
Yeah, this one is definitely not something I ever heard of growing up.
"AMOG destroyers," (or "AMOGing," "AMOG tactics") i.e. dealing with competing males in the group with backhanded compliments or subtle jibes, such as picking an item of clothing they are wearing and making fun of them for it. "AMOG" stands for "Alpha Male Other Guy (or Alpha Male of Group)," and "AMOG" can also be used as a verb: to "AMOG" someone. AMOG destroyers are designed to establish oneself as the dominant person in the group. A lot of AMOGing comes from simply not acknowledging the other person.(Originally developed by Owen Cook)
This one was super common in high school; busting down another guy (often the girl's guy friend or boyfriend) whether he's present or not, to make oneself look better. Used by cockjockeys all over my school. Sadly, quite effective in its basic goal, which was to draw the attention of the girl in question.
Here's the thing though - it's a passive vs aggressive thing. In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
The difference there is, and this is just based off what I've seen and experienced, mind you: even those girls who aren't in the so called "7-10" range would have a markedly larger chance of getting with a guy if they took the initiative rather than waiting to be asked out. Sure, more attractive people have a higher chance of success in these things, certainly, but even for those who don't meet that criteria, it seems as though, everything being equal, things are more difficult for the single man because he doesn't have the "luxury" if you can call it that, of waiting to be asked out.
My wife complained about this when we first met. She said "well, I didn't have a lot of dates, because guys didn't want to go out with someone who was overweight". Now sure, she has some weight to lose, but my response is and always has been "Well, did you try asking any out?" Nope, she never did.
Point being, you're going to get rejected now and again, sure, but I have to believe that the perception in this society that women have the luxury of being more selective has some measure of truth to it, however small.
Dimitri the Lover is real? I thought he was some sort of viral marketing something-or-other. Those creepy-ass answering machine messages are just so fucked up I don't see how he isn't in jail by now if he's doing shit like that regularly.
EDIT: @ Halfmex - while some of those things are indeed the sort of behaviors we usually associate with grade/high school kids, they usually a) grow out of it and b) definitely don't 'refine' it with weird psychological techniques and mind games. It's the sort of thing we associate with immature or poorly socialized people, not those who are well-adjusted - which is apparently what some PUA shucksters are claiming.
Duffel on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Here's the thing though - it's a passive vs aggressive thing. In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
The difference there is, and this is just based off what I've seen and experienced, mind you: even those girls who aren't in the so called "7-10" range would have a markedly larger chance of getting with a guy if they took the initiative rather than waiting to be asked out. Sure, more attractive people have a higher chance of success in these things, certainly, but even for those who don't meet that criteria, it seems as though, everything being equal, things are more difficult for the single man because he doesn't have the "luxury" if you can call it that, of waiting to be asked out.
My wife complained about this when we first met. She said "well, I didn't have a lot of dates, because guys didn't want to go out with someone who was overweight". Now sure, she has some weight to lose, but my response is and always has been "Well, did you try asking any out?" Nope, she never did.
Point being, you're going to get rejected now and again, sure, but I have to believe that the perception in this society that women have the luxury of being more selective has some measure of truth to it, however small.
Your wife is contrary to your point. Unless you are saying her years of datelessness were somehow easy fun filled times until she met you.
you have some direct evidence that its not all fun and roses just waiting and you go on about how there's a small measure of truth to it. I don't understand your logic, because it's not logical.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
HalfmexI mock your value systemYou also appear foolish in the eyes of othersRegistered Userregular
Your wife is contrary to your point. Unless you are saying her years of datelessness were somehow easy fun filled times until she met you.
No, I'm saying that she percieved that her situation was "hopeless" and she'd never get a date because no one ever asked her out. I asked her if she ever took the initiative herself and she said "no", to which I replied that I believed she'd have had some degree of success, however large or small, if she'd tried to initiate rather than waiting to be asked out. Again, at least in this society, many single men don't have the luxury of standing around in a club or bar hoping to get picked up. The onus is on them to take the initiative. And again, I'm not saying that there are no women who take the initiative, certainly there are, just that it's more common for men to do so at this time.
Halfmex on
0
Options
HalfmexI mock your value systemYou also appear foolish in the eyes of othersRegistered Userregular
EDIT: @ Halfmex - while some of those things are indeed the sort of behaviors we usually associate with grade/high school kids, they usually a) grow out of it and b) definitely don't 'refine' it with weird psychological techniques and mind games. It's the sort of thing we associate with immature or poorly socialized people, not those who are well-adjusted - which is apparently what some PUA shucksters are claiming.
Oh I know, I wasn't trying to insinuate that they were healthy behaviors, just that in some cases they have been around, in some form or another, for awhile.
In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
There is one major difference.
There's really no one simple thing we can do to increase our chances of getting dates. We can make sure we're groomed, well-dressed, in-shape, and don't have any odious personal habits; we can increase the number of women we ask out (risking rejection at the same time); but ultimately in this schema there is nothing we can do directly to subvert this gender schema. As long as women wait to be pursued, men have to pursue, or nothing happens.
Women, on the other hand, do have one very simple thing they can start doing to break this cycle: they can start asking men out.
Edit: Halfmex beat me to it.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
There is one major difference.
There's really no one simple thing we can do to increase our chances of getting dates. We can make sure we're groomed, well-dressed, in-shape, and don't have any odious personal habits; we can increase the number of women we ask out (risking rejection at the same time); but ultimately in this schema there is nothing we can do directly to subvert this gender schema. As long as women wait to be pursued, men have to pursue, or nothing happens.
Women, on the other hand, do have one very simple thing they can start doing to break this cycle: they can start asking men out.
Edit: Halfmex beat me to it.
Errr, why do those things you mentioned not increase your chances of getting dates? Call me old-fashioned, but I imagine a well-groomed, well-dressed, in-shape guy without any gross personal habits who asks a lot of women out gets more dates than the slob picking his nose who asks out one person a year.
The difference there is, and this is just based off what I've seen and experienced, mind you: even those girls who aren't in the so called "7-10" range would have a markedly larger chance of getting with a guy if they took the initiative rather than waiting to be asked out. Sure, more attractive people have a higher chance of success in these things, certainly, but even for those who don't meet that criteria, it seems as though, everything being equal, things are more difficult for the single man because he doesn't have the "luxury" if you can call it that, of waiting to be asked out.
My wife complained about this when we first met. She said "well, I didn't have a lot of dates, because guys didn't want to go out with someone who was overweight". Now sure, she has some weight to lose, but my response is and always has been "Well, did you try asking any out?" Nope, she never did.
Point being, you're going to get rejected now and again, sure, but I have to believe that the perception in this society that women have the luxury of being more selective has some measure of truth to it, however small.
Someone up thread mentioned the problem women run into when they do try to be more aggressive - you risk being labeled some pretty ugly things. Of course it's not all guys and a lot of it is tone, but it's as easy for a woman to get that tone wrong when approaching a man as it is for a man when approaching a woman.
I gotta say that walking that line as a woman is difficult. When I was single, I was always nerve wracked. Trying to give signals to the guys I was interested in without giving the impression that I was one drink/line/compliment away from falling backwards onto the nearest surface with my legs spread.
(and now that I've given you all that image...)
As for the more selective thing - we can only be selective within the group that have approached us. You all get the luxury of the whole pool to choose from (if we want to start listing "luxuries") - we're limited to the guys who approach us or the ones who get the 2x4s to the head we're slinging and actually want to respond.
It's different and yet really the same thing. Everyone has self esteem issues to varying degrees. Grass is greener (as someone else up thread said). This woman would have loved to be able to approach men in bars, coffee shops, classes and not have to worry about giving the wrong impression.
In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
There is one major difference.
There's really no one simple thing we can do to increase our chances of getting dates. We can make sure we're groomed, well-dressed, in-shape, and don't have any odious personal habits; we can increase the number of women we ask out (risking rejection at the same time); but ultimately in this schema there is nothing we can do directly to subvert this gender schema. As long as women wait to be pursued, men have to pursue, or nothing happens.
Women, on the other hand, do have one very simple thing they can start doing to break this cycle: they can start asking men out.
Edit: Halfmex beat me to it.
Maybe it's because I'm in a college town but if I hit it off with a girl at the bar or well anywhere, and I say goodbye without asking for a number, she normally asks for mine or says something like "do you want my number?". This is good for me as when I'm drunk I tend to forget to do things like that.
I still have the impression that in some way, it's easier for a woman to get sex, but they are more selective about who they will sleep with.
For example take a man and a woman, both with decent looks, without necessarily being super hot. Both of them enter a bar and hit on people of the opposite sex with the intent of bringing them home for sexy time. I'm pretty sure that the woman will have a significantly higher success rate than the man.
You can also look at special nights to see the difference. Many bars and clubs will offer free or cheaper drinks for women on certain nights. Men think "whoo, drunk girls" and go out during Ladie's night.
Now does anyone seriously think that the opposite, Men's night, would be successful? Will women say: "Hey girls it's Men's night today! A bunch of drunk and easy guys, yaaay!" ? I think not.
In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
There is one major difference.
There's really no one simple thing we can do to increase our chances of getting dates. We can make sure we're groomed, well-dressed, in-shape, and don't have any odious personal habits; we can increase the number of women we ask out (risking rejection at the same time); but ultimately in this schema there is nothing we can do directly to subvert this gender schema. As long as women wait to be pursued, men have to pursue, or nothing happens.
Women, on the other hand, do have one very simple thing they can start doing to break this cycle: they can start asking men out.
Edit: Halfmex beat me to it.
Errr, why do those things you mentioned not increase your chances of getting dates? Call me old-fashioned, but I imagine a well-groomed, well-dressed, in-shape guy without any gross personal habits who asks a lot of women out gets more dates than the slob picking his nose who asks out one person a year.
Confirmation bias. His chances may still suck, but the number of instances has increase. He is still a loser.
Someone up thread mentioned the problem women run into when they do try to be more aggressive - you risk being labeled some pretty ugly things. Of course it's not all guys and a lot of it is tone, but it's as easy for a woman to get that tone wrong when approaching a man as it is for a man when approaching a woman.
I gotta say that walking that line as a woman is difficult. When I was single, I was always nerve wracked. Trying to give signals to the guys I was interested in without giving the impression that I was one drink/line/compliment away from falling backwards onto the nearest surface with my legs spread.
(and now that I've given you all that image...)
As for the more selective thing - we can only be selective within the group that have approached us. You all get the luxury of the whole pool to choose from (if we want to start listing "luxuries") - we're limited to the guys who approach us or the ones who get the 2x4s to the head we're slinging and actually want to respond.
It's different and yet really the same thing. Everyone has self esteem issues to varying degrees. Grass is greener (as someone else up thread said). This woman would have loved to be able to approach men in bars, coffee shops, classes and not have to worry about giving the wrong impression.
I suppose, like anything else, the odds of success and experience will vary with the person in question, but it just seems to me (and again, forgive my presumptuousness here, I'm simply speaking from a male perspective) that in a non-threatening, predatory environment (that is, not in a club or bar), if a girl approached me and I were single and she said "hey, sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you'd like to get some coffee or dinner sometime?", I just can't envision a rational person thinking, "man, what a whore".
I've had women approach me before (I'd imagine most men have at one point or another), in fact one paid me a nice compliment without coming right out and saying "hey, I'd like to date you" (though I wouldn't have minded that either), and I found that incredibly refreshing. I guess I'm just saying that the perception (not saying it's invalid) that men will automatically think any woman who approaches them is an easy lay is perhaps not totally accurate, and that if more women took the first step, I think they'd find that to be true.
In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
There is one major difference.
There's really no one simple thing we can do to increase our chances of getting dates. We can make sure we're groomed, well-dressed, in-shape, and don't have any odious personal habits; we can increase the number of women we ask out (risking rejection at the same time); but ultimately in this schema there is nothing we can do directly to subvert this gender schema. As long as women wait to be pursued, men have to pursue, or nothing happens.
Women, on the other hand, do have one very simple thing they can start doing to break this cycle: they can start asking men out.
Edit: Halfmex beat me to it.
Errr, why do those things you mentioned not increase your chances of getting dates? Call me old-fashioned, but I imagine a well-groomed, well-dressed, in-shape guy without any gross personal habits who asks a lot of women out gets more dates than the slob picking his nose who asks out one person a year.
I bolded the key words in my post.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
There is one major difference.
There's really no one simple thing we can do to increase our chances of getting dates. We can make sure we're groomed, well-dressed, in-shape, and don't have any odious personal habits; we can increase the number of women we ask out (risking rejection at the same time); but ultimately in this schema there is nothing we can do directly to subvert this gender schema. As long as women wait to be pursued, men have to pursue, or nothing happens.
Women, on the other hand, do have one very simple thing they can start doing to break this cycle: they can start asking men out.
Edit: Halfmex beat me to it.
Errr, why do those things you mentioned not increase your chances of getting dates? Call me old-fashioned, but I imagine a well-groomed, well-dressed, in-shape guy without any gross personal habits who asks a lot of women out gets more dates than the slob picking his nose who asks out one person a year.
Confirmation bias. His chances may still suck, but the number of instances has increase. He is still a loser.
No. Any guy who is honestly trying to meet someone is already doing those things. He may be able to marginally improve his chances by adjusting the way he goes about what he's already doing, but there is nothing fundamentally different that he can do to alter his situation of, "Go out, find women, try to make them interested."
Women, on the other hand, can do the same things (look nicer, smell better, sit around more popular locations populated by the sorts of guys they want) to marginally increase their chances of success... or they can fundamentally alter their situation ("Go out, wait around, hope guys notice me") by taking the initiative themselves.
So far every "Guys have it harder" post has been responded to with either "women are nervous about meeting people too" or "women have to just sit around hoping to be noticed". The former response is true and equal to the guys situation. The latter response means that the woman in question should just stop waiting around.
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
I'm happy with that. Women asking mens out. Gender stereotypes like that are retarded.
Then there's no more abloo bloo mens and maybe some of this retarded fucking abloo bloo lifes is tuffs at least womens are not nervous bullshit will go away.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I'm still intrigued to hear a monologue of what a women in a standard social situation would be thinking? I don't mean meeting a friend of a friend per say but imagine being in a club or a bar.
Okay, I'm your Huckleberry.
If I was to walk into a bar with some friends and be looking to meet someone (caveat, it's been a loooong time for me, so this may hurt a little):
[in my head] Oh god, I knew I should have worn the other outfit. My hair is horrible today and I'll bet the #$%^ing mascara is already running. Oooh, that guy is hot. Is he looking over here? If he is, he's probably looking at Jill *name completely made up*, they're always looking at Jill. Wait - he is looking over here - if I smile at him, then maybe he'll come over! Damn - someone got in the way.
a few drinks later...
ok I'll go to the bathroom and maybe someone will talk to me on the way back.
sometime later...
Crap, that didn't work. I'll go buy the next round next to the cute guy and see if I can strike up a conversation.
Damn, he's too busy flirting with the hot bartender with all the cleavage. Sigh. Back to the table with the drinks and hope that I don't fall down in these stupid heels on the way.
Oh look, Jill has yet another guy hitting on her. I'll just drop off her drink and go sit down again.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
I don't know why I come to these places. It's always the same. I'll go ask that guy about his tattoo/ponytail/message on his shirt... Aaaand back to the table for me.
Rinse, repeat ad naseum.
[end]
Not perfect, but it could have been a night out of most of my bar experiences.
I'm happy with that. Women asking mens out. Gender stereotypes like that are retarded.
Then there's no more abloo bloo mens and maybe some of this retarded fucking abloo bloo lifes is tuffs at least womens are not nervous bullshit will go away.
Posts
Is a shrink going to go to the club with you? There is a difference in knowing what you should do and doing it without stumbling. Part of the appeal to have a PUA wing/teacher is that when it comes time to act they are there to prod you on and boost your confidence. And if you fail they should tell you what you did well and what you can improve apon.
So here's a question. Most PUA's claim that the skills they teach you are skills most normally socialized people learned while growing up and thus they are just bringing you up to level the playing field. Is it "evil" for someone to use these types of skills in the club/bar/street/store/etc even if they don't know they are using them since they learned them naturally while growing up?
Welcome to nature vs nurture with a smidgen of the importance of intent.
You may want to take this to the philosophy thread.
I'd say it wholly depends on what they are using their skilz for in the club/bar/street/store/etc regardless of whether or not they know they are using them.
However, I hardly ever go out and I tend to never really flirt or look for a relationship these days, anyway. But, if people think this stuff is what they need to get what they want, then so be it. And as ol' Colin Moriarty says, information is a service and it costs. Some people are just douches and want your money for shit that is not all that secret.
Yeah. I mean, what use is a vagina without a willy?
i was the very definition of a nervous anxious guy, so dont give me any shit about not being able to relate.
i was bullied heavily for most of my school years, for one. people were enemies.
but the people involved, well, it depends on the person doesnt it. i aint gonna judge a whole grouping of people based on what they like. most of them are being manipulated into learning how to manipulate and the justifications for it are similarly indoctrinated. i read something like that once too, a long time ago.
i just got lucky: the things that people picked on me for ended up being the things people later liked me for.
i had good friends.
but overal, i think its repellent, backwards and "its better than nothing" isn't a good enough reason not to nuke the whole thing from orbit. just to be sure.
i would shed no tears if pua vanished, is what im saying.
That belief is, ultimately, built on every bit of culture that sabotages easy-relationship-building.
We suppose women should have an easier time because: guys always want women, we can't get enough! Any woman! But women have an easier time approaching men because it's so rarely done, for they are frigid and see no need for sloppery men and their big penises. But if they do approach men, then that means they're not normal, but the slutty horny sort of woman, and blah blah blah.
It's supposedly easy for women because men are sex-starved beasts and women couldn't give a shit less about the most disgusting invention of the early seventies. Right?
Is a PUA wing/teacher going to have your best interest at heart? Do they want you to have healthy relationships with other people? Do they want you to see women as people, not objects? Do they even want to cure you of your problem at all?
Seriously, stuff like this is a world apart from the sort of things that Geckahn posted, which is mostly under the field of traditional etiquette and simple good manners.
Yes, it's all about intent. Are you going into a bar, intentionally misrepresenting yourself, and trying to hook up with a chick so you can bang her and then leave? You're a cockwad.
Are you at a party with a cute girl, trying to be extra attentive and talking about her interests because you like her and want to get to know her better? You're a decent bloke, even though you're probably using a lot of the same skills as the other guy.
I guess I'd say that depends on the PUA. I'd agree that a shrink is a better choice, but I'd imagine that a lot of guys with low self esteem would like that shrink to be with them when they are trying to implement the advice in a social situation.
EDIT: Just to be clear I'm completely agreeing that intent is the key. I've met plenty of guys at the bar that have never heard of PUA's but are still tools who use PUA like skills they've naturally learned from years of trying to sleep with women.
Went and watched The Ugly Truth a few weeks ago. Saw that forum drama yesterday, and this morning Comedy Central had a movie very similar to The Ugly Truth playing this morning.
With that said...
Pickup artists are losers. Instead of working on their personality and gaining aspects that might be desirable, pickup artists are trained to be social rejects and assholes.
Does it work?
Yeah.
In a sense. Being a jerkwad to women tends to pick up women. Emotionally unstable, confused, or jaded women.
Why do pickup artists complain about women? Because the women they target, the women that they hone their skills for, people that respond when derided and insulted, are at their core damaged. Not all women are damaged. The ones they target are. Then they paint an entire brush across the entire gender.
"Oh, well, that hot blond chick who that slept with me because I was emotionally and physically abusive is crazy man!" Of course she's crazy. She responds to emotional and physical abuse. Even if the abuse is directed towards the "competition", anyone who sees that and wouldn't expect the same type of treatment when the relationship isn't going "perfectly" is retarded.
One of the big divides in PUA is the issue of "monogamy". Some find it out dated. But again, considering they've yet to find, and don't know how to find, a woman that they can marry, their opinions on monogamy aren't really worth the styling gel these losers employ.
You even have to question the mindset of some of the more flagrant pickup artists and wonder what type of upbringing they had.
As mentioned above, it's about intent. If you read a book that tells you to be on the initiative, courteous, and interesting, that's one thing. But most PUA literative I've glossed over consisted of instructions on being an asshole.
There's a difference.
EDIT
As for that post yesterday, it's pretty obvious that what Gabe was talking about and the actual subject at hand were two completely different things.
EDIT II
Also, in this post of mine, I'm referring specifically to the most egregious example, which from anecdotal experience over the years, out number any "wingman" or whatever.
Could be the fact that I live in MS.
But I've also never heard of PUA referred to anyone other than the major jerkwads.
Here's the thing though - it's a passive vs aggressive thing. In the standard society approved method, the men approach the women, yes. But while the dudes have all the nervousness on the approach and worry about rejection - the women are living that out on the other side. The impact on our self esteem is on being asked or ignored. For every guy out there living in fear of rejection, there's a woman or two (and yeah, they're probably not the one's in the 7-10 "hot" range that the PUA comm is always talking about) who aren't asked out and are probably watching a better looking friend field men all day long.
It's not so different for us, that's all I'm saying.
Yeah, this one is definitely not something I ever heard of growing up.
This one was super common in high school; busting down another guy (often the girl's guy friend or boyfriend) whether he's present or not, to make oneself look better. Used by cockjockeys all over my school. Sadly, quite effective in its basic goal, which was to draw the attention of the girl in question.
Toronto's "Dimitri the Lover"
Last year there was a surprising amount of coverage, much of it linked in this article.
It's not all bad.
Just most of it.
My wife complained about this when we first met. She said "well, I didn't have a lot of dates, because guys didn't want to go out with someone who was overweight". Now sure, she has some weight to lose, but my response is and always has been "Well, did you try asking any out?" Nope, she never did.
Point being, you're going to get rejected now and again, sure, but I have to believe that the perception in this society that women have the luxury of being more selective has some measure of truth to it, however small.
EDIT: @ Halfmex - while some of those things are indeed the sort of behaviors we usually associate with grade/high school kids, they usually a) grow out of it and b) definitely don't 'refine' it with weird psychological techniques and mind games. It's the sort of thing we associate with immature or poorly socialized people, not those who are well-adjusted - which is apparently what some PUA shucksters are claiming.
Your wife is contrary to your point. Unless you are saying her years of datelessness were somehow easy fun filled times until she met you.
you have some direct evidence that its not all fun and roses just waiting and you go on about how there's a small measure of truth to it. I don't understand your logic, because it's not logical.
There is one major difference.
There's really no one simple thing we can do to increase our chances of getting dates. We can make sure we're groomed, well-dressed, in-shape, and don't have any odious personal habits; we can increase the number of women we ask out (risking rejection at the same time); but ultimately in this schema there is nothing we can do directly to subvert this gender schema. As long as women wait to be pursued, men have to pursue, or nothing happens.
Women, on the other hand, do have one very simple thing they can start doing to break this cycle: they can start asking men out.
Edit: Halfmex beat me to it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Errr, why do those things you mentioned not increase your chances of getting dates? Call me old-fashioned, but I imagine a well-groomed, well-dressed, in-shape guy without any gross personal habits who asks a lot of women out gets more dates than the slob picking his nose who asks out one person a year.
Someone up thread mentioned the problem women run into when they do try to be more aggressive - you risk being labeled some pretty ugly things. Of course it's not all guys and a lot of it is tone, but it's as easy for a woman to get that tone wrong when approaching a man as it is for a man when approaching a woman.
I gotta say that walking that line as a woman is difficult. When I was single, I was always nerve wracked. Trying to give signals to the guys I was interested in without giving the impression that I was one drink/line/compliment away from falling backwards onto the nearest surface with my legs spread.
(and now that I've given you all that image...)
As for the more selective thing - we can only be selective within the group that have approached us. You all get the luxury of the whole pool to choose from (if we want to start listing "luxuries") - we're limited to the guys who approach us or the ones who get the 2x4s to the head we're slinging and actually want to respond.
It's different and yet really the same thing. Everyone has self esteem issues to varying degrees. Grass is greener (as someone else up thread said). This woman would have loved to be able to approach men in bars, coffee shops, classes and not have to worry about giving the wrong impression.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Maybe it's because I'm in a college town but if I hit it off with a girl at the bar or well anywhere, and I say goodbye without asking for a number, she normally asks for mine or says something like "do you want my number?". This is good for me as when I'm drunk I tend to forget to do things like that.
For example take a man and a woman, both with decent looks, without necessarily being super hot. Both of them enter a bar and hit on people of the opposite sex with the intent of bringing them home for sexy time. I'm pretty sure that the woman will have a significantly higher success rate than the man.
You can also look at special nights to see the difference. Many bars and clubs will offer free or cheaper drinks for women on certain nights. Men think "whoo, drunk girls" and go out during Ladie's night.
Now does anyone seriously think that the opposite, Men's night, would be successful? Will women say: "Hey girls it's Men's night today! A bunch of drunk and easy guys, yaaay!" ? I think not.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Confirmation bias. His chances may still suck, but the number of instances has increase. He is still a loser.
I've had women approach me before (I'd imagine most men have at one point or another), in fact one paid me a nice compliment without coming right out and saying "hey, I'd like to date you" (though I wouldn't have minded that either), and I found that incredibly refreshing. I guess I'm just saying that the perception (not saying it's invalid) that men will automatically think any woman who approaches them is an easy lay is perhaps not totally accurate, and that if more women took the first step, I think they'd find that to be true.
I bolded the key words in my post.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No. Any guy who is honestly trying to meet someone is already doing those things. He may be able to marginally improve his chances by adjusting the way he goes about what he's already doing, but there is nothing fundamentally different that he can do to alter his situation of, "Go out, find women, try to make them interested."
Women, on the other hand, can do the same things (look nicer, smell better, sit around more popular locations populated by the sorts of guys they want) to marginally increase their chances of success... or they can fundamentally alter their situation ("Go out, wait around, hope guys notice me") by taking the initiative themselves.
So far every "Guys have it harder" post has been responded to with either "women are nervous about meeting people too" or "women have to just sit around hoping to be noticed". The former response is true and equal to the guys situation. The latter response means that the woman in question should just stop waiting around.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Who was that No directed at? Not me I hope...
Then there's no more abloo bloo mens and maybe some of this retarded fucking abloo bloo lifes is tuffs at least womens are not nervous bullshit will go away.
Okay, I'm your Huckleberry.
If I was to walk into a bar with some friends and be looking to meet someone (caveat, it's been a loooong time for me, so this may hurt a little):
[in my head] Oh god, I knew I should have worn the other outfit. My hair is horrible today and I'll bet the #$%^ing mascara is already running. Oooh, that guy is hot. Is he looking over here? If he is, he's probably looking at Jill *name completely made up*, they're always looking at Jill. Wait - he is looking over here - if I smile at him, then maybe he'll come over! Damn - someone got in the way.
a few drinks later...
ok I'll go to the bathroom and maybe someone will talk to me on the way back.
sometime later...
Crap, that didn't work. I'll go buy the next round next to the cute guy and see if I can strike up a conversation.
Damn, he's too busy flirting with the hot bartender with all the cleavage. Sigh. Back to the table with the drinks and hope that I don't fall down in these stupid heels on the way.
Oh look, Jill has yet another guy hitting on her. I'll just drop off her drink and go sit down again.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
I don't know why I come to these places. It's always the same. I'll go ask that guy about his tattoo/ponytail/message on his shirt... Aaaand back to the table for me.
Rinse, repeat ad naseum.
[end]
Not perfect, but it could have been a night out of most of my bar experiences.