Pickup artists (related to Monday's front-page convo)

LoneIgadzra

Okay, so here is what Magic Bullets has to say about negs (be prepared to be appalled/amused):

Negs were overused and misunderstood in the old Mystery Method. Revived for this book, they have a very
limited and specific use and purpose. We present them as a potential tool, but you can enjoy great success
with women without them.

A neg is a very strong disqualification tool that can also raise your value. A neg is something that appears
to be communicated with positive or at least neutral intent toward a woman, but “inadvertently” betrays
that you notice that she is not perfect. For example, the classic neg, “nice nails, are they real?” is somewhat
of a compliment, until she admits that her nails are fake. “You blink a lot” (said neutrally) or “your nose
wiggles when you talk” (said as if you think it’s cute) accomplish the same thing.

An effective neg will:

• Disqualify yourself. Men who are hitting on a woman don’t generally do this kind of thing. She’ll
  know it and her friends will know it.
• Temporarily lower her value, decreasing the potential value gap between you.
• Increase your value. Low-value men don’t often say those sorts of things to high-value women. Low-
  value men do insult unattainable women, but these are negs, not insults.

The problem with negs is that they can often backfire if used inappropriately and demonstrate low
Social Intuition. Here are some tips to avoid this situation:

• Only neg high-value women. If she is not one of the most attractive women in the room, don’t
  neg her.
• Don’t over-neg. One, maybe two, is usually the maximum unless you are dealing with a woman
  who is vastly out of your league.
• Don’t draw attention to the neg. Change the subject quickly or deliver the neg as an aside when
  you are in the middle of a longer story or piece. You should always say something unrelated to the
  neg as soon as you deliver it. If you pause for her to react, she might feel defensive or feel she needs
  to respond negatively to you in order to “save face”, especially in front of her friends.

Morninglord

To be fair, my "Tactics of Manipulation: an thus how to avoid them" lectures came off exactly the same, but with the emphasis on "and thus this is what you should look out for" rather than "And thus this is what you should go and do"

Intent.

Duffel

Are you not slightly creeped out by this strange assigning of "value" toward women (apparently on some kind of spectrum where some are more valuable than others)?

Interjection

LoneIgadzra wrote: »

Okay, so here is what Magic Bullets has to say about negs (be prepared to be appalled/amused):

Negs were overused and misunderstood in the old Mystery Method. Revived for this book, they have a very
limited and specific use and purpose. We present them as a potential tool, but you can enjoy great success
with women without them.

A neg is a very strong disqualification tool that can also raise your value. A neg is something that appears
to be communicated with positive or at least neutral intent toward a woman, but “inadvertently” betrays
that you notice that she is not perfect. For example, the classic neg, “nice nails, are they real?” is somewhat
of a compliment, until she admits that her nails are fake. “You blink a lot” (said neutrally) or “your nose
wiggles when you talk” (said as if you think it’s cute) accomplish the same thing.

An effective neg will:

• Disqualify yourself. Men who are hitting on a woman don’t generally do this kind of thing. She’ll
  know it and her friends will know it.
• Temporarily lower her value, decreasing the potential value gap between you.
• Increase your value. Low-value men don’t often say those sorts of things to high-value women. Low-
  value men do insult unattainable women, but these are negs, not insults.

The problem with negs is that they can often backfire if used inappropriately and demonstrate low
Social Intuition. Here are some tips to avoid this situation:

• Only neg high-value women. If she is not one of the most attractive women in the room, don’t
  neg her.
• Don’t over-neg. One, maybe two, is usually the maximum unless you are dealing with a woman
  who is vastly out of your league.
• Don’t draw attention to the neg. Change the subject quickly or deliver the neg as an aside when
  you are in the middle of a longer story or piece. You should always say something unrelated to the
  neg as soon as you deliver it. If you pause for her to react, she might feel defensive or feel she needs
  to respond negatively to you in order to “save face”, especially in front of her friends.

Hahaha, christ.

The only problem I have is that people do this all the time...even when they don't know what a 'neg' is. Does knowing what it does make it so much worse.

Maybe I am just a terrible person...or grew up in a really sarcastic household...I bet that's it...we teased each other constantly...and I had 2 sisters.

Morninglord

Intent motherfucker. I find the intent repellent.
Plus clearly you have never read Skinner.

Interjection

Morninglord wrote: »

To be fair, my "Tactics of Manipulation: an thus how to avoid them" lectures came off exactly the same, but with the emphasis on "and thus this is what you should look out for" rather than "And thus this is what you should go and do"

Intent.

I am not as smart as you...what page was this on so I can go and get smart?

I am completely serious here...where can I read where this was already covered.

[/SERIOUSNESS]

Umaro

The two girlfriends I've had either asked me out, or made the first move, or nothing would have ever happened... I'm not nearly as much of a coward as I used to be, but I still can't really, uh, "seal the deal". Come on, ladies!

Duffel

Morninglord wrote: »

Intent motherfucker. I find the intent repellent.
Plus clearly you have never read Skinner.

Sorry dude, I wasn't talking to you.

Then again I'm not exactly sure if you were talking to me.

kaliyama

Morninglord wrote: »

Intent motherfucker. I find the intent repellent.
Plus clearly you have never read Skinner.

Your issue is with intent? That it's wrong to try to do things with the intent to get laid? That would rule out most of human endeavor. There's nothing wrong with going out to a bar and trying to have a one-night stand. If you're leading men or women on about how serious a relationship is while using them for sex, there's a serious ethical issue about honesty, but if you're just out scamming, and it works - well, that's the point of a bar.

Morninglord

ElJeffe wrote: »

thisisntwally wrote: »

DasUberEdward wrote: »

Warder45 wrote: »

Improvolone wrote: »

thisisntwally wrote: »

nexuscrawler wrote: »

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 always says it best.

Duffel

kaliyama wrote: »

Your issue is with intent? That it's wrong to try to do things with the intent to get laid? That would rule out most of human endeavor.

When you're doing things with the intent to get your wick dipped regardless of the impact on the other person, yes, that is pretty shitty.

Interjection

Morninglord wrote: »

Intent motherfucker. I find the intent repellent.
Plus clearly you have never read Skinner.

So I guess you just don't like that we have realized how things work because it makes us think in ways that are largely immoral?

I guess I agree with that...but just knowing that it's okay to tease girls and they won't hate you helps people. I agree having laid out lines to use on people is fairly disgusting.

And no, I haven't read skinner, but I know of him. I just am not as intellectual as the top 10% of this forum.

Klyka

Sadly my best friend is currently falling ever deeper into the PUA community.

He started out around February of last year when he went to stay 1 year in Korea for his studies and is now going out into the streets/clubs/wherever every chance he gets to hone his "game".
So far, he got a few numbers, but usually it's just one big "I didn't get her,but it was fun! Really!" for him.

That wouldn't all be so bad for me, everyone can do what he wants, but he has been telling me to do it too WAY too often now. Every time I tell him "I do not care about this, I have no fun doing this, leave me ALONE with it" he starts again. And again.
It's like he is fucking brainwashed into the whole "if you don't go out at every possible moment and hit on chicks or learn how to hit on them/trick them/make yourself seem better" then you are a fucking loser who needs to be saved. Or an AFC (average frustrated chump) as the PUAs call it.
The thing is, he doesn't understand that just because you don't want to do it, you are not an AFC.
But apparently there is no in between in the circles he frequents, there is only "You are a PUA, you hit on women" or "you are a loser AFC".

It's fucking terrible and I am actually feeling like losing a friend over such a stupid matter as "LET'S HIT ON GIRLS HYUCK HYUCK".

Quid

kaliyama wrote: »

Morninglord wrote: »

Intent motherfucker. I find the intent repellent.
Plus clearly you have never read Skinner.

Your issue is with intent? That it's wrong to try to do things with the intent to get laid? That would rule out most of human endeavor. There's nothing wrong with going out to a bar and trying to have a one-night stand. If you're leading men or women on about how serious a relationship is while using them for sex, there's a serious ethical issue about honesty, but if you're just out scamming, and it works - well, that's the point of a bar.

Don't you ever fucking talk to me in a bar.

Morninglord

Quid wrote: »

kaliyama wrote: »

Morninglord wrote: »

Intent motherfucker. I find the intent repellent.
Plus clearly you have never read Skinner.

Your issue is with intent? That it's wrong to try to do things with the intent to get laid? That would rule out most of human endeavor. There's nothing wrong with going out to a bar and trying to have a one-night stand. If you're leading men or women on about how serious a relationship is while using them for sex, there's a serious ethical issue about honesty, but if you're just out scamming, and it works - well, that's the point of a bar.

Don't you ever fucking talk to me.

Repellent.

Umaro

Once any "movement" reaches a certain critical mass of acronyms and labels, they become a force of darkness beyond redemption.

EDIT: In response to "AFCs".

Duffel

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that bars have purposes other than serving as a catalog for potential players to find people to fuck.

Umaro

Trying to get sex is evil now? As long as it's all the other person is after too, I fail to see the problem...

kaliyama

Morninglord wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

kaliyama wrote: »

Morninglord wrote: »

Intent motherfucker. I find the intent repellent.
Plus clearly you have never read Skinner.

Your issue is with intent? That it's wrong to try to do things with the intent to get laid? That would rule out most of human endeavor. There's nothing wrong with going out to a bar and trying to have a one-night stand. If you're leading men or women on about how serious a relationship is while using them for sex, there's a serious ethical issue about honesty, but if you're just out scamming, and it works - well, that's the point of a bar.

Don't you ever fucking talk to me.

Repellent.

One-night stands are repellent? Making out with someone at a club that you met 20 minutes ago is demeaning to the other person? It's not like women are just out there all the time pining for their one true love and men who have one-night stands are misleading and defiling them. Plenty of women are out there looking for easy sex with minimal emotional commitment. I'm not sure who's harmed if, after charming someone who is looking for sex, you then have emotionless but physically pleasing sex.

I think we need to narrow the range of disagreement, because you and Quid are coming off a lot more anti-sex than what your position actually is. I'm just not sure what you're getting at.

Morninglord

Me personally disliking something clearly means it's objectively evil in every possible sense.

Be less defensive. I'm not going to lie about disliking something.

How the flying fuck any of you cannot see the difference between honestly wishing a one night stand that is reciprocated and approached in a clear manner and deliberately using manipulation tactics like "negging" in order to "Scam" a "quick lay" of an unsuspecting "bitch".

And then not understand me when I talk about intent.

Jesus.

Ed321

Interjection wrote: »

LoneIgadzra wrote: »

Okay, so here is what Magic Bullets has to say about negs (be prepared to be appalled/amused):

Negs were overused and misunderstood in the old Mystery Method. Revived for this book, they have a very
limited and specific use and purpose. We present them as a potential tool, but you can enjoy great success
with women without them.

A neg is a very strong disqualification tool that can also raise your value. A neg is something that appears
to be communicated with positive or at least neutral intent toward a woman, but “inadvertently” betrays
that you notice that she is not perfect. For example, the classic neg, “nice nails, are they real?” is somewhat
of a compliment, until she admits that her nails are fake. “You blink a lot” (said neutrally) or “your nose
wiggles when you talk” (said as if you think it’s cute) accomplish the same thing.

An effective neg will:

• Disqualify yourself. Men who are hitting on a woman don’t generally do this kind of thing. She’ll
  know it and her friends will know it.
• Temporarily lower her value, decreasing the potential value gap between you.
• Increase your value. Low-value men don’t often say those sorts of things to high-value women. Low-
  value men do insult unattainable women, but these are negs, not insults.

The problem with negs is that they can often backfire if used inappropriately and demonstrate low
Social Intuition. Here are some tips to avoid this situation:

• Only neg high-value women. If she is not one of the most attractive women in the room, don’t
  neg her.
• Don’t over-neg. One, maybe two, is usually the maximum unless you are dealing with a woman
  who is vastly out of your league.
• Don’t draw attention to the neg. Change the subject quickly or deliver the neg as an aside when
  you are in the middle of a longer story or piece. You should always say something unrelated to the
  neg as soon as you deliver it. If you pause for her to react, she might feel defensive or feel she needs
  to respond negatively to you in order to “save face”, especially in front of her friends.

Hahaha, christ.

The only problem I have is that people do this all the time...even when they don't know what a 'neg' is. Does knowing what it does make it so much worse.

Maybe I am just a terrible person...or grew up in a really sarcastic household...I bet that's it...we teased each other constantly...and I had 2 sisters.

You must have a really odd definition of "teasing" if that's why you tease friends and dates. When I (and most people, I think) tease dates it's to make them laugh, feel comfortable with you, make them feel like they can say that kind of thing to you and that you'll be easy with it etc. Not "lower their value".

In terms of assigning "values" to women, I don't think that's particularly iffy in itself. Let's not over-analyse every little term here and see patterns where they don't exist.

Umaro

Well you didn't say you "disliked it", you made it pretty clear that you found it absolutely abhorrent... "Yeah, it's just my opinion bro, if you disagree then please never speak to me again."

Interjection

Morninglord wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

thisisntwally wrote: »

DasUberEdward wrote: »

Warder45 wrote: »

Improvolone wrote: »

thisisntwally wrote: »

nexuscrawler wrote: »

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 always says it best.

Yeah, I completely agree with him. Any guy who misrepresents himself is a cockwad. I guess I agree that any guy who does something so mechanically trying to lower this and raise that and demostrate this is quite dickish.

I look at the whole idea of negs and break it down into "It's okay to tease each other." That I don't think is dickish...

I think the problem is that the community does that to people like the friend of Klyka's and turns the into social robots...like a member of a cult or something.

EDIT: I feel like this conversation is getting a little heated...if I am wrong please let me know. I am still totally in chill lets discuss this and see exactly where we disagree is (which I don't think we do that much).

Klyka

I really don't like the whole "We can teach you the tricks and skills that will get you ANY woman. That super model? You can get her, if you know these skills" thing which the PUAs preach.

Like when you read all their stories or watch their "live videos" of half bald, aging men picking up hot models somewhere. I mean,do people really believe these videos?
Have they never heard of "staged" things? And that this might get people to talk about them and buy their videos/books or attend their "boot camps"?

But of course every time you say this, you get shot down with "But it WORKS, it is PROVEN!" and then they say the prices are there because if everyone knew how to do it and everyone did it, it wouldn't work anymore.

Spiffy McBang

On the topic of "isn't manipulation what we all do":

via dictionary.com, manipulation- 1. to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner

The purpose of dressing well, speaking properly, whatever it is you do to impress a date, is at worst manipulation of the self. You are managing yourself, hopefully with skill. It is unwise to be dishonest about this; a well-dressed version of yourself should still be you.

When we speak of manipulating other people, that means purposely looking for "chinks in the armor"- ie. things that someone will like- and adapting your actions to take advantage of those specifics. In small doses, this can be done with positive results; if you do a nice thing based on a passing comment in conversation, that shows observational ability and the fact you are actually paying attention to the other person. But for the PUA, it's essentially being willing to morph into whatever role he thinks will be most likely to end up with him in a woman's pants. PUA classes are designed, in many cases, to teach guys general characteristics that many women share, on which they can use the same tactics.

That's fucked up. And that's why manipulating other people the way a PUA does is getting hammered.

Duffel

kaliyama wrote: »

One-night stands are repellent? Making out with someone at a club that you met 20 minutes ago is demeaning to the other person? It's not like women are just out there all the time pining for their one true love and men who have one-night stands are misleading and defiling them. Plenty of women are out there looking for easy sex with minimal emotional commitment. I'm not sure who's harmed if, after charming someone who is looking for sex, you then have emotionless but physically pleasing sex.

I think we need to narrow the range of disagreement, because you and Quid are coming off a lot more anti-sex than what your position actually is. I'm just not sure what you're getting at.

Your assuming that bars are a place where scamming (here, specifically interpersonal/sexual scamming) is acceptable by virtue of it being a bar is what's bothering people.

kaliyama

Morninglord wrote: »

Me personally disliking something clearly means it's objectively evil in every possible sense.

Be less defensive. I'm not going to lie about disliking something.

I didn't think you were lying, nor would I want you to. I just wasn't clear if you disliked the idea of people having a one-night stand, or something else, probably involving dishonesty.

Personally? I only have sex in the context of relationships, because of std, trust and quality of sex issues. But that doesn't mean I think it's wrong that some of my woman-friends are on adult friend finder.

Morninglord

Umaro wrote: »

Well you didn't say you "disliked it", you made it pretty clear that you found it absolutely abhorrent... "Yeah, it's just my opinion bro, if you disagree then please never speak to me again."

Oh, I found that truly abhorrent. Scamming at bars is the ok thing now man.

But hey they're all there to do it too so I'm justified right.

Shall I go back and bold the specific part of the post which prompted that extreme reaction.
Or perhaps just post it by itself.

Sex is not what I was reacting to. I was, and still am, and always will be, reacting to the intent.
I got no hangups about sex as a healthy normal enjoyable activity between equals. I could show you if you like. :winky:

kaliyama

Duffel wrote: »

kaliyama wrote: »

One-night stands are repellent? Making out with someone at a club that you met 20 minutes ago is demeaning to the other person? It's not like women are just out there all the time pining for their one true love and men who have one-night stands are misleading and defiling them. Plenty of women are out there looking for easy sex with minimal emotional commitment. I'm not sure who's harmed if, after charming someone who is looking for sex, you then have emotionless but physically pleasing sex.

I think we need to narrow the range of disagreement, because you and Quid are coming off a lot more anti-sex than what your position actually is. I'm just not sure what you're getting at.

Your assuming that bars are a place where scamming (here, specifically interpersonal/sexual scamming) is acceptable by virtue of it being a bar is what's bothering people.

When I say scamming, I don't mean "lying." I mean flirting, seducing and engaging in the goofy PUA stuff. I mention a bar specifically because it's likely, depending on the kind of bar, that other people are looking for the same thing. The lower-end ones are referred to as "meat markets." My point is that the PUA stuff is only morally wrong when it's tricking someone into having sex with you on false pretenses - e.g. that you love them, or want a long-term relationship with them.

Do you guys just find all of this baroque window-dressing we attach to courtship immoral? What's wrong with small talk, display, and puffery? Do you guys just try to arrange dates through community elders, or hand someone a note saying "I find you intellectually and physically pleasing, would you like to consume a prepared meal with fermented grape beverages and then watch a fast-moving collection of digital images, commonly referred to as a 'movie'?"

Umaro

Morninglord wanna have sex?

I mean...

Hey man what's up lookin good ahaha nice shirt man but no really it sucks but I don't care cause you seem like a nice dude. :winky:

Ed321

Interjection wrote: »

Morninglord wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

thisisntwally wrote: »

DasUberEdward wrote: »

Warder45 wrote: »

Improvolone wrote: »

thisisntwally wrote: »

nexuscrawler wrote: »

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 always says it best.

Yeah, I completely agree with him. Any guy who misrepresents himself is a cockwad. I guess I agree that any guy who does something so mechanically trying to lower this and raise that and demostrate this is quite dickish.

I look at the whole idea of negs and break it down into "It's okay to tease each other." That I don't think is dickish...

I think the problem is that the community does that to people like the friend of Klyka's and turns the into social robots...like a member of a cult or something.

Read the magic bullet example. Negging does not equal teasing. Two totally different things in the case of the PUAs we're discussing.

Edit: Wow that one sentence really wasn't worth an entire quote tree.

Morninglord

Umaro wrote: »

Morninglord wanna have sex?

I mean...

Hey man what's up lookin good ahaha nice shirt man but no really it sucks but I don't care cause you seem like a nice dude. :winky:

Oh man that was so hot and then you went all unneccessarily complicated geez way to pop the buzz man.

Klyka

Morninglord wrote: »

Umaro wrote: »

Morninglord wanna have sex?

I mean...

Hey man what's up lookin good ahaha nice shirt man but no really it sucks but I don't care cause you seem like a nice dude. :winky:

Oh man that was so hot and then you went all unneccessarily complicated geez way to pop the buzz man.

should have showed more value there man, next time throw a neg in and try some peacocking it helps.
also, 3 second rule man, 3 second rule!


I hate my friend for telling me what this shit means.


edit: when my friend told me about the 3 second rule i asked: "if a girl falls on the floor and you pick her up in 3 seconds you can still have sex with her?" He was not amused.

Duffel

kaliyama wrote: »

When I say scamming, I don't mean "lying." I mean flirting, seducing and engaging in the goofy PUA stuff. I mention a bar specifically because it's likely, depending on the kind of bar, that other people are looking for the same thing. The lower-end ones are referred to as "meat markets." My point is that the PUA stuff is only morally wrong when it's tricking someone into having sex with you on false pretenses - e.g. that you love them, or want a long-term relationship with them.

Do you guys just find all of this baroque window-dressing we attach to courtship immoral? What's wrong with small talk, display, and puffery? Do you guys just try to arrange dates through community elders, or hand someone a note saying "I find you intellectually and physically pleasing, would you like to consume a prepared meal with fermented grape beverages and then watch a fast-moving collection of digital images, commonly referred to as a 'movie'?"

Many people - women included - go to bars/clubs for an untold variety of reasons. Sometimes this is to get laid, sometimes it's to party, or to relax, or to listen to music, or because they're on a date with their SO, or because there's nothing else to do, or any other conceivable thing. The idea that any woman in a bar is a potential target for creepy PUA stuff because she obviously wants to get laid by a random dude because otherwise she wouldn't be in a bar seems a bit old-fashioned and misogynistic. I don't think that's what you're intending to say, but think about what you're saying here for a minute.

Umaro

I think the trick behind PUAs is to just confuse women until they have no choice but to sleep with you out of bewilderment.

EDIT: Okay, peacocking sounds pretty hot.

Morninglord

My long term satisfying relationship of (let me think I think going on 5 years now jesus time does fly eh) has one party who has never set foot in a bar.

It isn't me.

Interjection

Read the magic bullet example. Negging does not equal teasing. Two totally different things in the case of the PUAs we're discussing.

Edit: Wow that one sentence really wasn't worth an entire quote tree.

The difference is intent, I agree completely. But if you look at a guy in a club teasing a girl, and a guy in a club negging a girl, it is hard to tell the difference.

The intent is different I agree on that, and yeah the intent of PUAs with regards to negging is disgusting. But the effects ON THE GIRL are the same.

Klyka

Duffel wrote: »

kaliyama wrote: »

When I say scamming, I don't mean "lying." I mean flirting, seducing and engaging in the goofy PUA stuff. I mention a bar specifically because it's likely, depending on the kind of bar, that other people are looking for the same thing. The lower-end ones are referred to as "meat markets." My point is that the PUA stuff is only morally wrong when it's tricking someone into having sex with you on false pretenses - e.g. that you love them, or want a long-term relationship with them.

Do you guys just find all of this baroque window-dressing we attach to courtship immoral? What's wrong with small talk, display, and puffery? Do you guys just try to arrange dates through community elders, or hand someone a note saying "I find you intellectually and physically pleasing, would you like to consume a prepared meal with fermented grape beverages and then watch a fast-moving collection of digital images, commonly referred to as a 'movie'?"

Many people - women included - go to bars/clubs for an untold variety of reasons. Sometimes this is to get laid, sometimes it's to party, or to relax, or to listen to music, or because they're on a date with their SO, or because there's nothing else to do, or any other conceivable thing. The idea that any woman in a bar is a potential target for creepy PUA stuff because she obviously wants to get laid by a random dude because otherwise she wouldn't be in a bar seems a bit old-fashioned and misogynistic. I don't think that's what you're intending to say, but think about what you're saying here for a minute.

That's the thing about PUA though:

EVERY woman is a target. Boyfriend? Target. Married? Target.
Hell, you get MORE credit for getting girls that are in a relationship in this community!

They have entire subforums dedicated to "how do i get my target to break up with her guy/social circle so I can do with her what i want"?

Morninglord

Interjection wrote: »

Read the magic bullet example. Negging does not equal teasing. Two totally different things in the case of the PUAs we're discussing.

Edit: Wow that one sentence really wasn't worth an entire quote tree.

The difference is intent, I agree completely. But if you look at a guy in a club teasing a girl, and a guy in a club negging a girl, it is hard to tell the difference.

The intent is different I agree on that, and yeah the intent of PUAs with regards to negging is disgusting. But the effects ON THE GIRL are the same.

Yes. And one is repellant. And one is not.

It's not a particularly hard concept to get your head around if you stop looking at the consequences and look at the intent. The consequences are not a justification for that kind of intent in a moral call.
Sorry man, but morals aren't just about consequences.
I happen to value integrity. So the intent is repellent to my sense of integrity. It's not rocket science.

Duffel

Klyka wrote: »

That's the thing about PUA though:

EVERY woman is a target. Boyfriend? Target. Married? Target.
Hell, you get MORE credit for getting girls that are in a relationship in this community!

They have entire subforums dedicated to "how do i get my target to break up with her guy/social circle so I can do with her what i want"?

Classy.