The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
"The Pick-Up Artist": Teaching Guys How to Seduce Womenz!
Posts
It would be really interesting to see if geography has any relation to sexual inhibitions on a large scale. Or if geography has any relation to lameness.
Could just be that your friends hang in cool spots, but are uniformly lame, so you're pretty cool in comparison. I have no idea dude.
Then find a chair.
Cute ;-)
Yes, that's why it's a stupid argument. I don't dig one-night-stands either, but I'm not about to go passing judgement on people for thinking otherwise.
True...but you are passing judgment on those who would pass judgment themselves. I'm guessing the whole "judge not, less ye be judged" thing is lost on you. Don't feel bad though, it's lost on 99.99% of the PA forums dwellers.
Which would make sense if I had said "I'm not going to judge anyone ever for anything", but I didn't say that, because I'm not a retard. Try again.
I dunno, the idea that people will go out for the sole purpose of having sex is foreign to me. If I were a woman, I'd be completely turned off by a guy who was talking with me for the sole purpose of getting some. The show itself doesn't seem to be based on forming meaningful relationships with anyone. It's all based on learning how to project yourself as someone you're not to hide your inadequacies instead of actually addressing them. The fact that they chose a guy to be the host who is, by several accounts here, incredibly shallow and insecure, speaks volumes about what the show is really about.
It seems kind of pathetic, actually. Conversing with someone you're attracted to isn't a means to an end. The conversation is what you should be going for and if you get some, hooray congrats. But if you don't and never do, it's not a failure. It seems like the PUA is deliberately deceiving the other party. Instead of talking about something of mutual interest, the PUA artificially creates conversation and pretends to be interacting while in reality, is just running a conversation routine that is a means to an end rather than an end itself.
Also, my gf agrees and thinks PUA are creepy.
oh yeah?!? well the 57 sexy bitches i fucked in the ass last night would disagree
I'M WINNING!! I'M WINNING!! I'M WINNING THE GAME
There's a difference Kaputa...if you can't figure it out, please go sit back down at the kiddie table and have another cookie.
Ok then VC, what are you saying? Your opinion counts and no one else's'? Rules of semantics only apply when you're applying them? I can pass judgment on your judgment, but you can't pass judgment on me? Please...enlighten us...
on second thought: Don't...this thread has gone so far off the map it's likely to pop up on the other side...maybe we should all get back on topic as to this "Game" nonsense...
Yeah. The show, and the guy running the show are disingenuous and creepy. I think that the contestants do need help with their confidence, and their ability to meet women (I mean, when they talk about how lonely they are, they start crying) but I don't think that Mystery is the man to give it. He is outrageous in dress and in action though, so he gets the show rather than someone like Wayne Elise.
to add to the creepiness, everything he and his guru's said, when they went in there to show off their stuff, I have seen video of them saying the exact same lines from years ago. Creepy squared.
Sorry, my vitirol in the beginning was more of a uncontrolled reaction to ege02 than anything else.
My problem with this 'pick up' business stems from the fact that they're not even trying to be sincere. They give lines and stratagems that emulate things that an interesting and socially adept person would say, without the requirement of them being actually interesting or having anything worthwhile to say.
Now, for the purpose of simply meeting women you see on the street this is fine, if a little shallow. The deciding factor for a guy looking to initiate any of these games is the apperance of the woman. Since they've never met before, that's pretty much all there is to go on. Sometimes by carefully picking a location you can kind of ensure that there's some kind of common interest (Library: 'So... you're reading Borges?' Golf course: 'What's your best score on this hole?'), but really they just approach people because they're pretty, and aspects like 'her personality' don't factor in.
You can't expect much more from a meeting between strangers, but with the 'pick up artists' approach there's no time spent to evaluate this kind of thing - they're always aggresively pursuing a romantic outcome regardless of her personality; indeed the rules-based, codified approach has to exclude her personality as a variable, since it's too unpredictable to take into account, given that the guys who resort to following this do so because they're socially inept.
I think for those guys there's a better way of approaching this, although it's not as quick or as easy. It involves actually being an interesting person, having things in common with the people you're talking to, and knowing their personality and genuinely liking it before you deciced to come on to them.
Essentially all you do is you go out and volunteer doing something that interests you. It can be pretty much anything. I volunteered for our campus newspaper. As long as you have some kind of skill doing anything you can make it: I didn't write, I drew (poorly at the time), so I became the graphics editor. Two other people loved sports and became the sports editors, we had a computer programmer become our IT guy... and if you just wanted to chill out you could become a writer or whatever. The important thing is that you're out there, you're meeting people, and you all have at least something in common.
You get to know all of them, and you make friends. That's really all there is to it. You let your redeeming qualities as a person work for you (and everyone has at least one) and from there it's easy to find girls you like and want to hang out with. In my four years working with the paper I've met three girlfriends and had a bunch of dates through the people I met there, and while it's not as flashy as being able to pick up random pretty girls I see on the street, it's probably healthier for everyone involved and certainly less creepy.
http://thornsbook.com online novel
By decimal system you mean categorizing women between a one and a ten right?
Ladder theory, ladder theory olol.
Seriously, though, do you only interact with women socially because you want to have sex with them? Because that would seem rather sad and belie a few issues when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex.
Thanks man. Those are all really really valid criticisms of what these guys do. My only critique is that you're making the common assumption that everyone out there that falls under the unfortunately named banner of a PUA is doing the same thing, when really, there are many different "schools."
The school that uses lines and boilerplate conversations to initiate conversations with women is probably best referred to as the Mystery Method school, because this guy, Mystery, came up with this entire system and he sells it as "the mystery method." It's shallow and sleazy and dishonest. I agree.
But there are other schools that are just about learning to be your best self, how to speak with confidence, etc etc. These guys unfortunately get lumped in with everyone else during discussion, and get a bad name.
Basically, I think that there are a lot of people out there that can benefit from social coaching, and that there are some social coaches that are doing some really good, beneficial stuff. There's also guys out there teaching the "Dark side of the force" so to speak, and they are probably the worst spokespeople for this internet based community. Unfortunately, they are also the most popular.
Personally, I just say whatever I believe. If I like her hair, then I say so. If I don't, then I find something I do like and comment on that. Or ask her what she's interested in and have a conversation about that because, perhaps oddly, I actually find that you can learn a lot from listening to other people, especially about topics they're passionate about.
The ring thing is kind of lame, imho. It sounds like a line and not a particularly interesting one at that. And if you're gonna do it, at least make sure you're giving people the right information. Otherwise, get your facts straight so you don't just waste their time even more.
Well said.
Ahaha. I have not once said anything remotely close to agreeing with the ladder theory. Nice Troll.
I also never said that I talk to women only to have sex. I was arguing a hypothetical point.
Actually, I usually initiate conversation because I want to get to know them. Only after that point do I make a decision if I actually want to have sex with them and even then, it'll happen when it's time. Even if it's weeks or months later.
A great conversation is a reward in and of itself. Anything else is just icing on the cake.
It is a line. Or rather, it's a routine because it's a group of lines. And being factual isn't the important part of it, but it does help. The idea behind it is to keep the ball rolling and not have dead spaces in the conversation while at the same time generating interest.
If you talk about her hair because you notice her hair then good job, you're running game. Listening to people and talking to them about subjects their passionate about (and drawing out and finding what these passions are) is game.
As to ring finger not being interesting, I've found that in general women have an interest in horoscope and mythology. In general, I'm not saying all.
Oh but it's directly relevant. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up, seeing as derailing is not okay. One-night-stands involve quite a few risks, some of which can be a bit severe, but they are risks that people have the right to take as they only directly apply to the consenting participants. If there are no unwilling participants and the willing participants are aware of the risks they are exposing themselves to, I can't rightly say that what they're doing is wrong.
People have the right to have sex with any consenting party they choose to (noting that before one reaches the age of consent, one cannot consent, whether or not a fixed number even makes sense for that is a matter for another thread and I'm not fielding any bullshit about "consenting 3 year-olds"). Tricking people into consent, however, is no better than tricking someone into buying a lemon, arguably worse but I don't feel like arguing that here and now so I won't press it.
Factual is a part of conversation because if you're acting like you're teaching someone something, THEN TEACH THEM SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY TRUE. It's a matter of honesty more than anything, something that some of you don't seem to value very highly.
And no, none of that stuff I do is game. I do that for anyone, anywhere, because I value conversation. It's not a means to an end. It's the end in and of itself. It's about valuing someone for who they are not just what they can do for you. It's about caring about what they have to say and portraying yourself honestly.
If you don't give a shit about horoscope and mythology, then why are you talking about it? If you already know what you're going to say in a conversation, then it's not really a true conversation. You're not being honest; you're being, to use the scientific term, lame.
they're both pretty fucked up and potentially dangerous
Now what could possibly be shallow about:
Yeah, legitimiate help when it comes to speaking in general is something I endorse, and if a guy is completely incapable of speaking to women (and likely not good at speaking in general), having someone to help him along and feel more natural when it comes to having conversations is probably the best thing for him. Really, it's the opposite of finding things to say and do out of some sort of playbook.
That shit was great. Where's it from?
Agreed. I think that the playbook approach is popular for all of the wrong reasons, but it IS very very popular. I can maybe see it being used as a crutch for those that are desperately nervous around women,but only as training wheels(just for a short while).
He forgot the bit about giving her five across the eyes to let her know who's boss.
Who wrote this?
And can I beat them until candy comes out?
Check out the 681?
Oh wait. Dinosaurs.
There's one thing.
No, dinosaurs are more relevant - they have a more modern viewpoint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Leykis
I wouldn't really call him a PUA. I had never heard of him before I wikied 'Leykis'.
Edit: I misread. He only aired in canada for a while. He's from NYC and that explains a lot.
MWO: Adamski