Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

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

11819202123

Posts

  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Hah! I knew it!
    I love having my guesses supported by a single anecdote.
    mythago wrote: »
    So you're saying that women (can) do this shit too, to a degree. Men do it to get laid, women do it... to keep their boyfriend from straying? To run guys off who annoy them? Where does using these tricks on men leave them?

    Well, we all know women don't want to get laid, ever. For women, pussy is just a trade good that they use to get something else, kind of like wampum that bleeds once a month.

    Women are, like, people. People of both the innie and outie variety are capable of being manipulative, passive-aggressive, sociopathic and using predatory techniques. PUAs are not teaching men something that women do as innately as breathing, which I know I really don't have to explain to everybody except Bitter Q. McPissy back a few posts.

    Hi. Not my point.
    Based on the previous input that women are afraid of coming off as a slut (oohnoes, if I ask him out he'll think I'm a slut!), why would a woman be using these techniques? To not seem like a slut but still initiate sex? If a woman wanted meaningless casual sex, she really wouldn't have to use any of these tricks; can we agree to that?

    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • Mr. PokeylopeMr. Pokeylope Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Hah! I knew it!
    I love having my guesses supported by a single anecdote.
    mythago wrote: »
    So you're saying that women (can) do this shit too, to a degree. Men do it to get laid, women do it... to keep their boyfriend from straying? To run guys off who annoy them? Where does using these tricks on men leave them?

    Well, we all know women don't want to get laid, ever. For women, pussy is just a trade good that they use to get something else, kind of like wampum that bleeds once a month.

    Women are, like, people. People of both the innie and outie variety are capable of being manipulative, passive-aggressive, sociopathic and using predatory techniques. PUAs are not teaching men something that women do as innately as breathing, which I know I really don't have to explain to everybody except Bitter Q. McPissy back a few posts.

    Hi. Not my point.
    Based on the previous input that women are afraid of coming off as a slut (oohnoes, if I ask him out he'll think I'm a slut!), why would a woman be using these techniques? To not seem like a slut but still initiate sex? If a woman wanted meaningless casual sex, she really wouldn't have to use any of these tricks; can we agree to that?

    Your assuming that women see all men as equally sexually attractive, rather than wanting a certain guy and just like us being capable of being manipulative to get what they want.

  • cherv1cherv1 Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Seems to me these guys need to seriously modify their expectations. Not to be too blunt, but they are clearly unsociable, not especially attractive, or confident, yet they are expecting to fuck the hottest and most outgoing women. If they reversed the roles, would they seriously expect for, say, your stereotypical well built/ attracive/ successful guy to pick up an unattractive, socially inept, dowdy dressing woman, just because she's "nice™"?

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    cherv1 wrote: »
    Seems to me these guys need to seriously modify their expectations. Not to be too blunt, but they are clearly unsociable, not especially attractive, or confident, yet they are expecting to fuck the hottest and most outgoing women. If they reversed the roles, would they seriously expect for, say, your stereotypical well built/ attracive/ successful guy to pick up an unattractive, socially inept, dowdy dressing woman, just because she's "nice™"?

    It seems to me based on a lot of the stuff I've seen that PUA isn't really about relationships/women, or even just fucking. It's about people trying to boost their own egos using sex as a way to do it.

    As in, these are people who don't feel particularly good about themselves so they think that if they have sex with lots of hot women they would normally consider unattainable they will feel better about themselves or be worth more as a person. The women themselves are just a means to an end, hence the weird emphasis on quantifying both the number of sexual partners and the desirability thereof.

    Of course, I'm sure there are a few people who just recognize that a lot of times very attractive/outgoing women date people who you would think are nowhere near their league and they just want to be that guy. We've all met women who, despite being very attractive/friendly/good personality/fun/whatever continue to date fugly losers who treat them like shit, to the constant puzzlement of those around them who know they could do better. Even this is kind of shallow when you think about it, since I'm sure we've also known very attractive people who aren't very attractive once you get to know what they're actually like inside, and trying to hook up with someone just because they're hot or the life of the party is kinda unnecessary when there's other perfectly desirable people around. But this is more a matter of immaturity and shortsightedness than outright disrespect or misogyny.

    But I'd say the ego boosters are in the majority as opposed to the mostly-decent but underconfident dude who just wants some tips. After all, this is a subculture which is based around the idea of 'conquering' women in a kind of match of wills. You don't feel the need to do that sort of thing when you feel good about yourself.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Hi. Not my point.
    Based on the previous input that women are afraid of coming off as a slut (oohnoes, if I ask him out he'll think I'm a slut!), why would a woman be using these techniques? To not seem like a slut but still initiate sex? If a woman wanted meaningless casual sex, she really wouldn't have to use any of these tricks; can we agree to that?

    1) A man who wants "meaningless casual sex", period, wouldn't have to use any of these tricks either.

    2) The idea that men have to climb Mt. Everest to get laid while women can crook their little finger and have Brad Pitt come crawling on his knees is bullshit.

    3) As previously mentioned on the comment that turned into a tangent, seeking (and getting) meaningless casual sex is a lot more dangerous for women than for men.

    ETA: what Mr. Pokeylope said. I guess if you do believe that pussy is something men want and women trade, then it's easy to envision women as simply wanting any random stiff dick whereas men are selective and don't always get the woman they want.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • GammarahGammarah Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    The one person I knew personally who got into the PUA stuff was actually very successful with it, if you measure success by his ability to meet women, date them casually, and have sex a lot.

    However, he told me some time ago that he totally abandoned all of his PUA stuff because while it was great for meeting girls and getting him laid, the relationships he formed using those techniques were shallow, deceptive, and emotionally vacant.

    After a while, picking up chicks in nightclubs lost its appeal, and he decided he wanted a real girlfriend and a real relationship with another human being.

    This PUA stuff made him poorly equipped to accomplish that goal. In fact, it was his opinion that the techniques it teaches are counter-intuitive to what you want to accomplish to gain a more meaningful relationship.

    So, it seems to be the case that if you are just looking to get your fuck on and not give a shit, the PUA techniques are great. If, however, casual dating and emotionless sex starts to bore you, the PUA stuff gives you nothing.

    Between this post and Duffel's, I say this thread has reached its high point. Lets end it while its good!

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    cherv1 wrote: »
    Seems to me these guys need to seriously modify their expectations. Not to be too blunt, but they are clearly unsociable, not especially attractive, or confident, yet they are expecting to fuck the hottest and most outgoing women. If they reversed the roles, would they seriously expect for, say, your stereotypical well built/ attracive/ successful guy to pick up an unattractive, socially inept, dowdy dressing woman, just because she's "nice™"?

    It seems to me based on a lot of the stuff I've seen that PUA isn't really about relationships/women, or even just fucking. It's about people trying to boost their own egos using sex as a way to do it.

    As in, these are people who don't feel particularly good about themselves so they think that if they have sex with lots of hot women they would normally consider unattainable they will feel better about themselves or be worth more as a person. The women themselves are just a means to an end, hence the weird emphasis on quantifying both the number of sexual partners and the desirability thereof.

    Of course, I'm sure there are a few people who just recognize that a lot of times very attractive/outgoing women date people who you would think are nowhere near their league and they just want to be that guy. We've all met women who, despite being very attractive/friendly/good personality/fun/whatever continue to date fugly losers who treat them like shit, to the constant puzzlement of those around them who know they could do better. Even this is kind of shallow when you think about it, since I'm sure we've also known very attractive people who aren't very attractive once you get to know what they're actually like inside, and trying to hook up with someone just because they're hot or the life of the party is kinda unnecessary when there's other perfectly desirable people around. But this is more a matter of immaturity and shortsightedness than outright disrespect or misogyny.

    But I'd say the ego boosters are in the majority as opposed to the mostly-decent but underconfident dude who just wants some tips. After all, this is a subculture which is based around the idea of 'conquering' women in a kind of match of wills. You don't feel the need to do that sort of thing when you feel good about yourself.

    Then there's the thought that women have unrealistic expectations of the kind of men they deserve, which is currently promoted by the large contingent of the least desirable women being the most picky, although they seem to only want total psychopaths, so most people that it evens out. As you have probably already guessed, this large contingent is the Twilight reader base.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    mythago wrote: »
    Hi. Not my point.
    Based on the previous input that women are afraid of coming off as a slut (oohnoes, if I ask him out he'll think I'm a slut!), why would a woman be using these techniques? To not seem like a slut but still initiate sex? If a woman wanted meaningless casual sex, she really wouldn't have to use any of these tricks; can we agree to that?

    1) A man who wants "meaningless casual sex", period, wouldn't have to use any of these tricks either.

    2) The idea that men have to climb Mt. Everest to get laid while women can crook their little finger and have Brad Pitt come crawling on his knees is bullshit.

    3) As previously mentioned on the comment that turned into a tangent, seeking (and getting) meaningless casual sex is a lot more dangerous for women than for men.

    ETA: what Mr. Pokeylope said. I guess if you do believe that pussy is something men want and women trade, then it's easy to envision women as simply wanting any random stiff dick whereas men are selective and don't always get the woman they want.

    That was the case through many parts of history. It seems to switch back and forth. Guess which side of the cycle we are currently in.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »

    That was the case through many parts of history. It seems to switch back and forth. Guess which side of the cycle we are currently in.

    That doesn't even parse. If all the women you've fucked treat pussy as a trade good, it means they're not enjoying the sex. That's not history's fault.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    mythago wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    That was the case through many parts of history. It seems to switch back and forth. Guess which side of the cycle we are currently in.

    That doesn't even parse. If all the women you've fucked treat pussy as a trade good, it means they're not enjoying the sex. That's not history's fault.

    I mean that the position for which one's horny and which one puts up with it switch back and forth, so that in many periods men are supposed to be above sex and only interested in intellectual pursuits while women are held to be victims of the desires of the flesh.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    :shakes fist:
    EEEEEEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    :shakes fist:
    EEEEEEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

    Technically, that's only Christianity, although Judaism also believes that women need sex, hence the orgasm quotas.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • celandinecelandine Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    cherv1 wrote: »
    Seems to me these guys need to seriously modify their expectations. Not to be too blunt, but they are clearly unsociable, not especially attractive, or confident, yet they are expecting to fuck the hottest and most outgoing women. If they reversed the roles, would they seriously expect for, say, your stereotypical well built/ attracive/ successful guy to pick up an unattractive, socially inept, dowdy dressing woman, just because she's "nice™"?

    It seems to me based on a lot of the stuff I've seen that PUA isn't really about relationships/women, or even just fucking. It's about people trying to boost their own egos using sex as a way to do it.

    As in, these are people who don't feel particularly good about themselves so they think that if they have sex with lots of hot women they would normally consider unattainable they will feel better about themselves or be worth more as a person. The women themselves are just a means to an end, hence the weird emphasis on quantifying both the number of sexual partners and the desirability thereof.

    Of course, I'm sure there are a few people who just recognize that a lot of times very attractive/outgoing women date people who you would think are nowhere near their league and they just want to be that guy. We've all met women who, despite being very attractive/friendly/good personality/fun/whatever continue to date fugly losers who treat them like shit, to the constant puzzlement of those around them who know they could do better. Even this is kind of shallow when you think about it, since I'm sure we've also known very attractive people who aren't very attractive once you get to know what they're actually like inside, and trying to hook up with someone just because they're hot or the life of the party is kinda unnecessary when there's other perfectly desirable people around. But this is more a matter of immaturity and shortsightedness than outright disrespect or misogyny.

    But I'd say the ego boosters are in the majority as opposed to the mostly-decent but underconfident dude who just wants some tips. After all, this is a subculture which is based around the idea of 'conquering' women in a kind of match of wills. You don't feel the need to do that sort of thing when you feel good about yourself.

    This.

    I know guys who are generally secure and successful, but have trouble meeting girls. Universally, they don't fall for this PUA junk. Why? A secure person doesn't sign on for books and meetings and courses to immerse himself in a rigid worldview that reassures him that what he wants is more important than what anybody else wants.

    Some PUA promoters -- not all -- fall into a familiar pattern. You're down on your luck? Broke, lonely, feeling emasculated? Do you know who is to blame for all your problems? The feminists. Insert another group there and you have the selling tactics of every hate group in history.

    It's not just advice on how to act around women. That would be fine. It's that narrative of (male) victimization that makes it more problematic.

    I write about math here:
    http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »

    I mean that the position for which one's horny and which one puts up with it switch back and forth, so that in many periods men are supposed to be above sex and only interested in intellectual pursuits while women are held to be victims of the desires of the flesh.

    Well, not quite. In Western culture, it 'used to be' that men were considered enlightened, intellectual and ruled by reason, and women were these crazy cockhounds. (Which is why women were thought to be susceptible to Satan's temptations and turning to witchcraft, as you may know.) Around the time of the Enlightenment the view gradually changed to the idea that women are the nurturing, gentle, kindly and civilizing half of humanity, leaving men to be the horndogs who must be gently civilized by feminine influence.

    As we know, what cultural myths about how men and women really 'are' don't always match up with, well, how men and women really are. Unless you're actually claiming that a couple of hundred years ago, there was some kind of punctuated equilibrium thing that wiped out interest in sex from the entire female half of the species and transferred it to the male half?

    Again: anybody who just wants wobbly flesh can get it. "I can't ever get laid" really means "I can't ever get laid with the people I want to fuck." Sad news, Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom aren't kicking my door down, either, but that doesn't mean I have to do without.

    ETA: Judaism doesn't exactly have orgasm quotas, either. Remember that (except for the rabbinical ban) men are permitted under Jewish law to have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands. If your wife won't fuck you, you can take it elsewhere, but she has no such option - therefore a husband is required, under the marriage contract, to make sure she gets hers. I'm still trying to find out what the minimum number of times a month is for "IT guys".

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    mythago wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    I mean that the position for which one's horny and which one puts up with it switch back and forth, so that in many periods men are supposed to be above sex and only interested in intellectual pursuits while women are held to be victims of the desires of the flesh.

    Well, not quite. In Western culture, it 'used to be' that men were considered enlightened, intellectual and ruled by reason, and women were these crazy cockhounds. (Which is why women were thought to be susceptible to Satan's temptations and turning to witchcraft, as you may know.) Around the time of the Enlightenment the view gradually changed to the idea that women are the nurturing, gentle, kindly and civilizing half of humanity, leaving men to be the horndogs who must be gently civilized by feminine influence.

    As we know, what cultural myths about how men and women really 'are' don't always match up with, well, how men and women really are. Unless you're actually claiming that a couple of hundred years ago, there was some kind of punctuated equilibrium thing that wiped out interest in sex from the entire female half of the species and transferred it to the male half?

    Again: anybody who just wants wobbly flesh can get it. "I can't ever get laid" really means "I can't ever get laid with the people I want to fuck." Sad news, Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom aren't kicking my door down, either, but that doesn't mean I have to do without.

    ETA: Judaism doesn't exactly have orgasm quotas, either. Remember that (except for the rabbinical ban) men are permitted under Jewish law to have multiple wives but women can't have multiple husbands. If your wife won't fuck you, you can take it elsewhere, but she has no such option - therefore a husband is required, under the marriage contract, to make sure she gets hers. I'm still trying to find out what the minimum number of times a month is for "IT guys".

    Gender roles tend to insert themselves into behavior, so that women are taught to suppress the urge while men are allowed to acknowledge it.

    Rabbis have the strictest quota, though, so your explanation doesn't make sense.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Gender roles tend to insert themselves into behavior, so that women are taught to suppress the urge while men are allowed to acknowledge it.

    Rabbis have the strictest quota, though, so your explanation doesn't make sense.

    I don't get what you're saying about rabbis. Jewish law technically allows multiple wives/concubines, but there's been a rabbinical ban on the practice (at least for Ashkenazic Jews) for, what, a thousand years?

    I agree that gender roles do affect behavior; the problem is confusing that with how men and women innately "are". A woman who enjoys sex may not sleep with you on the first date, even if she wants to, because she's aware that guys who don't judge themselves for doing so will judge her. That's very different from the assertion that women have 'vagina', a sort of trade good from which they derive no innate benefit, as Gabe seems to believe.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    mythago wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Gender roles tend to insert themselves into behavior, so that women are taught to suppress the urge while men are allowed to acknowledge it.

    Rabbis have the strictest quota, though, so your explanation doesn't make sense.

    I don't get what you're saying about rabbis. Jewish law technically allows multiple wives/concubines, but there's been a rabbinical ban on the practice (at least for Ashkenazic Jews) for, what, a thousand years?

    I agree that gender roles do affect behavior; the problem is confusing that with how men and women innately "are". A woman who enjoys sex may not sleep with you on the first date, even if she wants to, because she's aware that guys who don't judge themselves for doing so will judge her. That's very different from the assertion that women have 'vagina', a sort of trade good from which they derive no innate benefit, as Gabe seems to believe.

    By suppressing the urge, they eventually learn to feel it less strongly, thereby making them less desperate, hence the boobs:dick ratio on the internet.

    Rabbis have a very strict quota of the number of times they have to brings their wives to climax. Were the quota due to polygamy, there'd be no need for rabbis to have the quota.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    Oh yeah, this test comes to mind on this topic.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Rabbis have a very strict quota of the number of times they have to brings their wives to climax. Were the quota due to polygamy, there'd be no need for rabbis to have the quota.

    I'm totally not following you here.

    Every husband, in strict Jewish tradition, has a quota of the minimum number of times he has to have pleasurable (for her) sex with his wife. I'm not aware of any counting of actual orgasms ("okay, honey, that was three, I can skip the next two times I was gonna have sex with you" - no). A man whose wife refuses to have sex with him is allowed to get laid elsewhere; the reverse is not true. So you need some kind of rule to make sure she gets hers.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    mythago wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Rabbis have a very strict quota of the number of times they have to brings their wives to climax. Were the quota due to polygamy, there'd be no need for rabbis to have the quota.

    I'm totally not following you here.

    Every husband, in strict Jewish tradition, has a quota of the minimum number of times he has to have pleasurable (for her) sex with his wife. I'm not aware of any counting of actual orgasms ("okay, honey, that was three, I can skip the next two times I was gonna have sex with you" - no). A man whose wife refuses to have sex with him is allowed to get laid elsewhere; the reverse is not true. So you need some kind of rule to make sure she gets hers.

    Rabbis have to do it six times a week, while sailors are down at once a month.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • SliverSliver Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    But I'd say the ego boosters are in the majority as opposed to the mostly-decent but underconfident dude who just wants some tips. After all, this is a subculture which is based around the idea of 'conquering' women in a kind of match of wills. You don't feel the need to do that sort of thing when you feel good about yourself.
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Sliver wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.
    I'm sorry I'm failing in my penis solidarity. BRB, gtg piss on some trees/mount the couch

    How are people who could benefit from... whatever, but aren't actually doing it or studying it, even entering into the equation?

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Sliver wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.

    Okay, I parse this as: Yes, PUAs are assholes, but there are lots of guys who COULD take PUA courses and not be assholes, and if you don't agree with me you hate your penis.

    Did I miss anything?

    There is absolutely nothing in the 'moral material' that you can't get elsewhere. Really, a friend of mine who benefitted from a not-evil how-to-meet-girls book let me read it, and there were two things different from any other book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Namely:

    1) Telling the reader that women's lives suck in a lot of ways men's lives don't, so keep that in mind when talking to them;
    2) It was a book described as 'how to meet/get in a relationship with women' so more guys would probably pick it up than a general self-help book.

    Really, that was it. No crap about "negging" or impressing your buds with a 9+ or meeting women in bars.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    mythago wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.

    Okay, I parse this as: Yes, PUAs are assholes, but there are lots of guys who COULD take PUA courses and not be assholes, and if you don't agree with me you hate your penis.

    Did I miss anything?

    There is absolutely nothing in the 'moral material' that you can't get elsewhere. Really, a friend of mine who benefitted from a not-evil how-to-meet-girls book let me read it, and there were two things different from any other book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Namely:

    1) Telling the reader that women's lives suck in a lot of ways men's lives don't, so keep that in mind when talking to them;
    2) It was a book described as 'how to meet/get in a relationship with women' so more guys would probably pick it up than a general self-help book.

    Really, that was it. No crap about "negging" or impressing your buds with a 9+ or meeting women in bars.

    There's basically no good reason a non-asshole needs to get into PUA material or techniques.

    None.

    There are many, many different approaches and techniques that can improve a man's self-esteem, help him manage social anxieties and fear of rejection, and teach him about body language and conversational techniques that will lead him to greater success not just with women, but with people in general.

    And many of those don't have a bunch of quasi-sociopathic bullshit like "negging" and such.

    All the benefits of PUA techniques can be found in other things without that nonsense, so really there's no reason to respect PUA bullshit at all.

  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.

    Okay, I parse this as: Yes, PUAs are assholes, but there are lots of guys who COULD take PUA courses and not be assholes, and if you don't agree with me you hate your penis.

    Did I miss anything?

    There is absolutely nothing in the 'moral material' that you can't get elsewhere. Really, a friend of mine who benefitted from a not-evil how-to-meet-girls book let me read it, and there were two things different from any other book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Namely:

    1) Telling the reader that women's lives suck in a lot of ways men's lives don't, so keep that in mind when talking to them;
    2) It was a book described as 'how to meet/get in a relationship with women' so more guys would probably pick it up than a general self-help book.

    Really, that was it. No crap about "negging" or impressing your buds with a 9+ or meeting women in bars.

    There's basically no good reason a non-asshole needs to get into PUA material or techniques.

    None.

    There are many, many different approaches and techniques that can improve a man's self-esteem, help him manage social anxieties and fear of rejection, and teach him about body language and conversational techniques that will lead him to greater success not just with women, but with people in general.

    And many of those don't have a bunch of quasi-sociopathic bullshit like "negging" and such.

    All the benefits of PUA techniques can be found in other things without that nonsense, so really there's no reason to respect PUA bullshit at all.

    But results!

    steam_sig.png
  • SliverSliver Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.
    I'm sorry I'm failing in my penis solidarity. BRB, gtg piss on some trees/mount the couch

    How are people who could benefit from... whatever, but aren't actually doing it or studying it, even entering into the equation?

    Because as long fucktards keep comparing PUAs with spree killers like George Sodini regular guys who could stand to benefit from the material are probably going to be deterred from doing so. Perfectly neutral material like how to tell if a woman is interested in you or the phases of a relationship.

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Sliver wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.
    I'm sorry I'm failing in my penis solidarity. BRB, gtg piss on some trees/mount the couch

    How are people who could benefit from... whatever, but aren't actually doing it or studying it, even entering into the equation?

    Because as long fucktards keep comparing PUAs with spree killers like George Sodini regular guys who could stand to benefit from the material are probably going to be deterred from doing so. Perfectly neutral material like how to tell if a woman is interested in you or the phases of a relationship.

    ...which can be found outside the PUA world without all the creepy baggage.

    Also, what? Nobody is saying that "PUA = Sodini". What people are saying is that the warped worldviews present in some PUA literature further twisted Sodini's already fucked-up mind and when reality didn't reconcile with the bullshit he'd been sold he snapped and killed people.

    Specifically, the people (attractive young women) who he'd been repeatedly told he could have sexual access to if he just pushed the right magic buttons and who he felt were denying him what was 'rightfully' his according to said PUA authors.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.

    Okay, I parse this as: Yes, PUAs are assholes, but there are lots of guys who COULD take PUA courses and not be assholes, and if you don't agree with me you hate your penis.

    Did I miss anything?

    There is absolutely nothing in the 'moral material' that you can't get elsewhere. Really, a friend of mine who benefitted from a not-evil how-to-meet-girls book let me read it, and there were two things different from any other book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Namely:

    1) Telling the reader that women's lives suck in a lot of ways men's lives don't, so keep that in mind when talking to them;
    2) It was a book described as 'how to meet/get in a relationship with women' so more guys would probably pick it up than a general self-help book.

    Really, that was it. No crap about "negging" or impressing your buds with a 9+ or meeting women in bars.

    There's basically no good reason a non-asshole needs to get into PUA material or techniques.

    None.

    There are many, many different approaches and techniques that can improve a man's self-esteem, help him manage social anxieties and fear of rejection, and teach him about body language and conversational techniques that will lead him to greater success not just with women, but with people in general.

    And many of those don't have a bunch of quasi-sociopathic bullshit like "negging" and such.

    All the benefits of PUA techniques can be found in other things without that nonsense, so really there's no reason to respect PUA bullshit at all.

    But results!

    Did you know that regularly using cocaine in moderation can work as an effective anti-depressant?

    It's true!

    A person with depression problems can totally get real and valid anti-depressant results with some very regulated cocaine dosage.

    Now, of course, cocaine is pretty addictive and the half-life of it in your body is pretty low and the crash is really bad and the high from cocaine can be difficult to moderate...

    but, RESULTS!

    ignoring the fact that there's no good reason to take cocaine for depression and that there are other methods to dealing with depression including therapy or even medication specifically designed for it that is much less shitty than doing fucking coke.

    but hey

    SOME PEOPLE HAVE GOOD RESULTS GUYS

  • InterjectionInterjection Registered User
    edited August 2009
    I am just checking back in...not relapsing here.

    But why are people still caught up on negging? It is barely ever used anymore...

    BAD ANALOGY TIME AGAIN FOLKS

    It would be like aliens arguing how Americans objectify women by not letting them vote. It just doesn't happen anymore. There is a small percentage of the community that still hold on to negs...and they are not really the most respected group.

    The point being that the aliens in this situation are arguing over something that doesn't exist anymore, but is more of a relic of the past. Which is the level negging has been lowered to now.

    I am now leaving...feel free to ignore this post. But for god sakes stop arguing about negging nobody seriously in the community uses or believes they are very useful anymore.

    aka kcMasterpiece
  • Ed321Ed321 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'm pretty sure you guys are all arguing over the same things we were arguing about half a thread ago.

  • InterjectionInterjection Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.

    Okay, I parse this as: Yes, PUAs are assholes, but there are lots of guys who COULD take PUA courses and not be assholes, and if you don't agree with me you hate your penis.

    Did I miss anything?

    There is absolutely nothing in the 'moral material' that you can't get elsewhere. Really, a friend of mine who benefitted from a not-evil how-to-meet-girls book let me read it, and there were two things different from any other book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Namely:

    1) Telling the reader that women's lives suck in a lot of ways men's lives don't, so keep that in mind when talking to them;
    2) It was a book described as 'how to meet/get in a relationship with women' so more guys would probably pick it up than a general self-help book.

    Really, that was it. No crap about "negging" or impressing your buds with a 9+ or meeting women in bars.

    There's basically no good reason a non-asshole needs to get into PUA material or techniques.

    None.

    There are many, many different approaches and techniques that can improve a man's self-esteem, help him manage social anxieties and fear of rejection, and teach him about body language and conversational techniques that will lead him to greater success not just with women, but with people in general.

    And many of those don't have a bunch of quasi-sociopathic bullshit like "negging" and such.

    All the benefits of PUA techniques can be found in other things without that nonsense, so really there's no reason to respect PUA bullshit at all.

    But results!

    Did you know that regularly using cocaine in moderation can work as an effective anti-depressant?

    It's true!

    A person with depression problems can totally get real and valid anti-depressant results with some very regulated cocaine dosage.

    Now, of course, cocaine is pretty addictive and the half-life of it in your body is pretty low and the crash is really bad and the high from cocaine can be difficult to moderate...

    but, RESULTS!

    ignoring the fact that there's no good reason to take cocaine for depression and that there are other methods to dealing with depression including therapy or even medication specifically designed for it that is much less shitty than doing fucking coke.

    but hey

    SOME PEOPLE HAVE GOOD RESULTS GUYS

    So the way I see it you are suggesting Marijuana (How to win friends and influence people) while somebody else is suggesting cocaine (PUA materials).

    I think that fits well, since PUA stuff is hard to get out of your head, kind of once you learn it you can't unlearn it.

    But at the end of the day they are both illegal drugs. (Both books to teach you how to influence people).

    Seriously leaving now

    aka kcMasterpiece
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.

    Okay, I parse this as: Yes, PUAs are assholes, but there are lots of guys who COULD take PUA courses and not be assholes, and if you don't agree with me you hate your penis.

    Did I miss anything?

    There is absolutely nothing in the 'moral material' that you can't get elsewhere. Really, a friend of mine who benefitted from a not-evil how-to-meet-girls book let me read it, and there were two things different from any other book like How to Win Friends and Influence People. Namely:

    1) Telling the reader that women's lives suck in a lot of ways men's lives don't, so keep that in mind when talking to them;
    2) It was a book described as 'how to meet/get in a relationship with women' so more guys would probably pick it up than a general self-help book.

    Really, that was it. No crap about "negging" or impressing your buds with a 9+ or meeting women in bars.

    There's basically no good reason a non-asshole needs to get into PUA material or techniques.

    None.

    There are many, many different approaches and techniques that can improve a man's self-esteem, help him manage social anxieties and fear of rejection, and teach him about body language and conversational techniques that will lead him to greater success not just with women, but with people in general.

    And many of those don't have a bunch of quasi-sociopathic bullshit like "negging" and such.

    All the benefits of PUA techniques can be found in other things without that nonsense, so really there's no reason to respect PUA bullshit at all.

    But results!

    Did you know that regularly using cocaine in moderation can work as an effective anti-depressant?

    It's true!

    A person with depression problems can totally get real and valid anti-depressant results with some very regulated cocaine dosage.

    Now, of course, cocaine is pretty addictive and the half-life of it in your body is pretty low and the crash is really bad and the high from cocaine can be difficult to moderate...

    but, RESULTS!

    ignoring the fact that there's no good reason to take cocaine for depression and that there are other methods to dealing with depression including therapy or even medication specifically designed for it that is much less shitty than doing fucking coke.

    but hey

    SOME PEOPLE HAVE GOOD RESULTS GUYS

    So the way I see it you are suggesting Marijuana (How to win friends and influence people) while somebody else is suggesting cocaine (PUA materials).

    I think that fits well, since PUA stuff is hard to get out of your head, kind of once you learn it you can't unlearn it.

    But at the end of the day they are both illegal drugs. (Both books to teach you how to influence people).

    Seriously leaving now

    actually you fucked up the metaphor

    what i was comparing was using cocaine (PUA materials) to using medically documented and professionally moderated methods (getting real help with your anxiety and social issues).

    not substituting one illegal drug for a less shitty one

    but thanks anyway

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I think people are vastly overestimating the extent to which PUA stuff actively denigrates women.

    Like I said a while ago, PUA is just pop behavioral psych. If a dude gets ahold of it and thinks 'man this is a good way to manipulate low self esteem women into boning me,' then that dude was already an asshole. He didn't become an asshole by reading the mystery method.

    Likewise lots of normal well adjusted men can read it and get nothing out of it but some conversation tips and semi-interesting bevhavioral study.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited August 2009

    Seriously leaving now

    Please stop saying this, it basically amounts to: "nobody criticise what I just said I declare this interaction over and I get the last word"

  • SliverSliver Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    Sliver wrote: »
    As far as active members of the community, probably. However, I think that the number of people who can benefit from reading the material outnumber the people who'd abuse it 10 to 1. I also think that a reasonable person can distinguish between the moral material (IOIs) and the immoral material (NLP) on their own. If you don't, I think you need a little bit more faith in your gender.
    I'm sorry I'm failing in my penis solidarity. BRB, gtg piss on some trees/mount the couch

    How are people who could benefit from... whatever, but aren't actually doing it or studying it, even entering into the equation?

    Because as long fucktards keep comparing PUAs with spree killers like George Sodini regular guys who could stand to benefit from the material are probably going to be deterred from doing so. Perfectly neutral material like how to tell if a woman is interested in you or the phases of a relationship.

    ...which can be found outside the PUA world without all the creepy baggage.

    Also, what? Nobody is saying that "PUA = Sodini". What people are saying is that the warped worldviews present in some PUA literature further twisted Sodini's already fucked-up mind and when reality didn't reconcile with the bullshit he'd been sold he snapped and killed people.

    Specifically, the people (attractive young women) who he'd been repeatedly told he could have sexual access to if he just pushed the right magic buttons and who he felt were denying him what was 'rightfully' his according to said PUA authors.
    No, it really can't. Not nearly with the same level of detail, specificity, or ease of access.

    And no, it couldn't have been the decades of isolation or screwed up childhood that made Sodini snap, it had do be those evil PUAs. The same way Merilyn Manson screwed up Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I think people are vastly overestimating the extent to which PUA stuff actively denigrates women.

    "Actively degrades" is not really correct. It's that many popular PUA seminars treat women as a) Teh Enemy who need to be tricked and manipulated into giving up the pussy they are unfairly withholding and b) a mechanism for scoring Man Points with your bros. Hence the emphasis on the "9+" and techniques like uninvited touching.

    And obviously, Pony's point was that "results!!!" is not really an argument.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    mythago wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I think people are vastly overestimating the extent to which PUA stuff actively denigrates women.

    "Actively degrades" is not really correct. It's that many popular PUA seminars treat women as a) Teh Enemy who need to be tricked and manipulated into giving up the pussy they are unfairly withholding and b) a mechanism for scoring Man Points with your bros. Hence the emphasis on the "9+" and techniques like uninvited touching.

    And obviously, Pony's point was that "results!!!" is not really an argument.

    Fighter pilots traditionally keep score of human lives they end. I'm pretty sure that counting girlfriends is just a natural expression of the human urge to quantify success.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Well, whatever. I think you are vastly overstating the degree to which women are treated as "the enemy," as well as the whole point scoring thing. These things are celebrated by a comparatively small subculture that exists mostly online.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Well, that seems pretty ludicrous.Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I think people are vastly overestimating the extent to which PUA stuff actively denigrates women.

    "Actively degrades" is not really correct. It's that many popular PUA seminars treat women as a) Teh Enemy who need to be tricked and manipulated into giving up the pussy they are unfairly withholding and b) a mechanism for scoring Man Points with your bros. Hence the emphasis on the "9+" and techniques like uninvited touching.

    And obviously, Pony's point was that "results!!!" is not really an argument.

    Fighter pilots traditionally keep score of human lives they end. I'm pretty sure that counting girlfriends is just a natural expression of the human urge to quantify success.

    I'd say it's a natural expression of being a dickhead.

    NOPE.
    Vd0n7Bk.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I think people are vastly overestimating the extent to which PUA stuff actively denigrates women.

    "Actively degrades" is not really correct. It's that many popular PUA seminars treat women as a) Teh Enemy who need to be tricked and manipulated into giving up the pussy they are unfairly withholding and b) a mechanism for scoring Man Points with your bros. Hence the emphasis on the "9+" and techniques like uninvited touching.

    And obviously, Pony's point was that "results!!!" is not really an argument.

    Fighter pilots traditionally keep score of human lives they end. I'm pretty sure that counting girlfriends is just a natural expression of the human urge to quantify success.

    I'd say it's a natural expression of being a dickhead.

    My first girlfriend keeps count. She is deeply lacking in the dickhead department. She just has bad luck with long-term relationships, and happens to keep count.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
Sign In or Register to comment.