meerkat stew Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Zengirl and Jaded, you two sound like a divorced couple fighting a custody battle in court over the kids. I will make a final judgment here They are obviously in love and need to just get a room already
dispatch3d Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Jaded, Seriously **** off. I've read that book (Men are from mars girls venus blabla). It's good and probably a must-read for any man or woman. Not that telling people to read it will make them read it. It also doesn't really have to deal with pickup, more understanding the sexes. Dude I hate to burst your fun bubble but girls give guys bad advice ALL THE TIME. In the world right now there are probably 10,000 girls telling 10,000 guys to just "be themselves". And guys are likely listening to those girls over actual GOOD advice given by guys. Get over it. Your yelling and screaming on here is falling on deaf ears. It's the internet man what do I care. I probably haven't been as angry as you are in your posts for at least a month. Likely been that mad maybe 2 times this year tops. Waste your energy somewhere else. fwiw the book of pook is probably better than the one stated and similar construction. I think it's free to get? Not sure. Its a guy book, the one you mentioned works for both sexes.
BS76 Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Jaded, Seriously **** off. I've read that book (Men are from mars girls venus blabla). It's good and probably a must-read for any man or woman. Not that telling people to read it will make them read it. It also doesn't really have to deal with pickup, more understanding the sexes. Dude I hate to burst your fun bubble but girls give guys bad advice ALL THE TIME. In the world right now there are probably 10,000 girls telling 10,000 guys to just "be themselves". And guys are likely listening to those girls over actual GOOD advice given by guys. Get over it. Your yelling and screaming on here is falling on deaf ears. It's the internet man what do I care. I probably haven't been as angry as you are in your posts for at least a month. Likely been that mad maybe 2 times this year tops. Waste your energy somewhere else. fwiw the book of pook is probably better than the one stated and similar construction. I think it's free to get? Not sure. Its a guy book, the one you mentioned works for both sexes. Lots of truth to this. The worst person you should ever take dating advice from is your mom. The second is straight women in general. The #1 people you should be getting dating advice from is by MEN WHO ARE SUCCESSFUL WITH WOMEN. The only problem you might face is when it comes to "naturals" who many not be able to adequately describe what they do. That's where dating coaches come into play. They're the ones that understand the underlying dynamics at play and how to navigate them to improve yourself.
zengirl Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 That's the problem with people like zengirl, she puts ideas out there that it's wrong to express sexual interest to a girl. Not only is it wrong but it makes you a creep. The only way is to approach women with a beta attitude that doesn't get you anywhere. First of all, I never said "wrong." I'm not making moral judgments here. Second of all, yeah, I think what you've suggested is creepy in several ways. It would creep me out. I don't really care what she thinks or does, but the fact that she's adversely affecting the OP in such a detrimental manner is discerning. Especially since he's so very impressionable about the whole dating idea due to lack of experience. You're essentially going to turn him into a beta chump who's going to be posting a bit down the road threads such as... "How do I get out of the friend zone?" "Why do they only want friendship?" "What does it mean when she says, I see you like a brother?" Ignore the fact that you were so turned on and flattered with the last guy who took charge and showed his interest in you. How he wasn't afraid to let his intentions be known, and make a move. How on Earth do you know how any of this is affecting the OP? You don't get out of the friend zone because you put yourself there by constructing the mythical place. They only want friendship because they aren't attracted to you. And she means she sees you like a brother. I don't think there's anything wrong or ineffective with showing interest---and I've even stated a fellow ought to do so----I do think it's the overtly sexualized manner in which you suggest doing it that is creepy or the controlling game-playing manner others have brought up that is frustrating and ineffective. Nothing wrong with being assertive. Everything wrong with being aggressive. Your way is aggressive. Some of the other ways I've seen suggested were passive-aggressive. Assertive is the way to go. Talking to someone like a human being, owning yourself by seeing if there is a rapport, in addition to attraction (on your part and hers; she might turn out to be something completely different than you expect, good or bad) and treating women as human beings is the best way to be healthy and not frustrated as you go about dating. Trying to play some kind of game or jumpstart attraction or play by some nonsense moves to win a person as an object rarely made anyone truly happy. Attraction can be genereted, yes. I'm certain it can be as I've done it and seen it done. This is the frame of mind he SHOULD be using. I set a goal for him which should also align his beliefs with this frame of mind. Suppose he starts randomly having 10 minute conversation with women regularly. Pretty soon he'll be asking some of them for numbers... You are actually suggesting an innergame change. Yeah the power thing is in subtext and in subconscious. I realize that. Well, I suppose I should clarify I think attraction can only be generated with unhealthy people. The "Treat 'Em Mean, Keep 'Em Keen" game for women and various games for me only work with unhealthy people. If you dig unhealthy people, control games can work wonders. The OP didn't sound like a jerk just out to screw the girl, and who wants to get into a relationship with a potentially unhealthy person? So. . . I ignored all those avenues. Generally, I ignore them. They don't make anyone happy, certainly not long-term, and people just go on feeling frustrated and unfulfilled. Yes, I'm suggesting an inner change. I don't think I'm suggesting a game at all. I'm suggesting being a person who is able to attract what you want. Wow! Why didn't I think of such great advice, all you can do is be yourself! Not just yourself but in the truest and best form! So he is being himself, which is why he hasn't had success with having a girl friend, yet you want him to continue being himself, is that right? If he's feeling dissonance between his feelings and his actions as he posted, he's not being his best and truest self. Most people aren't. What are you going to tell him.. "Oh don't worry she just wasn't interested or attracted to you." "It just wasn't meant to be. Be patient and the right one will come when you least expect it." "You just need to find someone compatible with you, someone just as introverted." He needs to realize he has the power within himself to create the life he wants. Man makes his own fate. Okay so he might be an introvert, you're telling him to stay one by just being himself? Well, you know, some people just aren't interested, attracted, or available. If you go into the world without realizing that, you're going to be pretty easily frustrated by constant rejection and disappointment. Treating it like some game where you can "win" everyone over is pointless for everyone involved and also leads to objectifying people. How does me telling him to become a friendly, sociable person who talks to strangers with ease suggest he stays an introvert. . . I mean, I suppose on the social science terms of the personality set, he could still remain an introvert in terms of preferences, but it's adding a more extroverted subset regardless. It is the opposite of that. If he learned interpersonal communication skills, learned to deal with his fears and anxieties, don't you think that will help attract that BN girl? Or is it wrong for the OP to become an extrovert because that's hot him. Just be yourself is like an excuse, no surprise here since zengirl is full of them. What if he likes to stay home playing computer games all day? He shouldn't give it up because that's part of his interest and hobbies? Are you telling me not giving up computer games won't make him more attractive? The same with certain behavior patterns? Wouldn't you agree being more confident, having the ability to read body language, learning how to become a great conversationalist would have a positive impact on his attraction towards women?I totally suggested he take social cues (which reading body language is part of) in my first post. I also suggested a way he could learn to deal with his fears and anxieties----but, you know, actually deal with them. Not cover them up with B.S. maneuvers. P.S. Plenty of girls do date boys who play some computer games. I mean, it depends on level of course, but things like an obsession with cars or sports can be just as unattractive. Girls don't like it when something they have no interest in is your whole life. Why target computer games? Have you ever read, "Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus?" Dr. John Gray delved into the thought process and psychology of both men and women. Don't you think understanding the opposite sex and learning how to act and react in certain situations would be beneficial? Or you shouldn't because that wouldn't be yourself. First of all, that book is absolutely atrocious. And dated. The worst blind date I ever went on some guy kept blabbering on and on about it. What a tool. Men who read that and think they've learned something about women (or vice versa) are living in a different era than myself. There are much better studies and research to rely on. Social anthropology is a hobby of mine, and I totally dig learning about people. I always recommend it. Zengirl and Jaded, you two sound like a divorced couple fighting a custody battle in court over the kids. I will make a final judgment here: Zengirl, Tyson will follow your recommendations on weekdays. Jaded, Tyson will follow your recommendations every other weekend and every other holiday. Problem solved! I think Tyson should form his own opinions, rather than follow my advice wholly. All people should. I just like asserting my opinions and, due to upcoming repatriation, have too much time on my hand to not reply when I've got something to say. It's a limited-time thing, but that's how it is. (I do also give recommendations I feel to be sound, of course. But I try to be very clear where it's coming from and why.) I do wish folks would stop speculating on various posters being interested in me or some other twisted manner of things. I'm just trying to assert my opinions and argue a bit on the internet and maybe inadvertently help someone stumble upon whatever makes them healthy and happy in their relationships. It's pretty disgusting that I'm getting objectified even anonymously on the internet. I mean, I'm zen about it and all. . . but it's still says a lot about the twisted social experiment that's happening right about here.
zengirl Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 I don't understand how being aggressive and assertive is a game controlling play? If anything all of your intentions are up front.. [ Aggressive and assertive are not even close to the same thing. Aggressive is its own game and its own form of unhealthy. Assertive is fine; your suggestions (the ones I explicitly balked at earlier) are not assertive; they are aggressive. Why do you think women get creeped out by nice guys so much? It's because they aren't aggressive in any manner, months go by and finally he professes his feelings of undying love towards her. Well . . yes, that's creepy too. Being passive will get you ignored, being passive aggressive will become annoying, being aggressive will be creepy and being some jumpy mix of the three will be creepy/annoying/confusing. None of these are assertive. This whole time the girl is oblivious and it comes as quite a shock. This right here makes a guy creepy. Now he's been playing games, hiding his true intention all along, under the false pretense of friends. I said treat a woman like a human being you're interested in learning more about so that you can see if there's any interest there, and you've jumped to being friends for months with hidden romantic intentions. It's silly. The two are not remotely linked. Tell me.. which is attractive, playing sports and being ripped? Or tinkering with cars (or in my case my sports bike)? Tell me, are women attracted to nice cars and sports bike? You bet a lot of them are. It shows them you have a passion for something, heck anything. This can also equate to passion elsewhere, if you know what I mean. I personally have dated a fellow who was into and created video games and other software. I found that way sexier than most guys with muscle cars, which I don't find attractive at all. This is, of course, variable. But a lot of women are turned off by a guy who pays more attention to video games/football/cars/whatever than her. That's the only place the "video games/computer nerd" stereotype as a problem. . . if he's obsessed with it at the expense of his real life, and that applies to everything. (This assumes one is talking about relationships, of course.) Computer games, what merit does that bring? When you say it depends on the level I guess you'd want a lvl 99 world of warcraft character as opposed to a lvl 1? Maybe that'll make him more attractive to women right? What merit does having a sports bike bring? I find a fellow who is actually fluent in C++ way more attractive than one who can replace a muffler or whatever (though I've known men who liked video games and cars at the same time; everything is possible). I don't find a dude who spends 10 hours a day on WoW attractive, but I don't spend a man who spends 10 hours a day watching football or worrying about sports bikes attractive either. It's all about balance. You also stated..."Not cover them up with B.S. maneuvers." I suppose you forgot in my post I was all about self improvement, a permanent change. It's okay I know you tend to lack reading comprehension skills. Your "self improvement" options aren't true self-improvement. As I've made clear. Generally people's random insults mirror their own insecurities and flaws, and that's all I'll say to the other point. It just seems like you're some radical feminist that thinks any level of sexual attraction is automatically considered objectification. I've nothing against sexual attraction. I've everything against being objectified as something "to get" for the sake of it, or for the sake of sleeping with me. If a guy is sexually attracted, and that compels him to see if he's interested in me as a person too, that's totally cool with me. I may not reciprocate the attraction, of course, or find him interesting as a person, or be in the mood to talk to anyone new, or be available, or even be someone he finds interesting as a person once he follows up a little more, but I've no issues with sexual attraction itself. It's ways of expressing it that are objectifying and disturbing to me, as they don't seem emotionally healthy. (Sex is not the ONLY way of objectifying people either.) P.S. If you're open minded then I suggest you read No More Mr. Nice Guy:A Proven Plan For Getting What You Want in Love, Sex and life. By Dr. Robert Glover. I don't read random self-help books. . . or, really, any. Most of them are the worst of social science. I'd rather read the actual statistics and science. I find Buddhist and Taoist scripture to be better at self-improving myself personally, though everyone has their thing. I think these pop books are mostly drivel. I don't like the "Why Men Love Bitches" stripes either. These books generally tell unhealthy people how to remain unhealthy and attempt to hide it and mimic healthy people in certain ways without actually looking at why they're healthy. He talks about how radical feminist like you and society turned the OP into the way he is. If you're willing to read this book, then I might consider doing one of your choosing. I don't care about what books you read. I'm really not a "radical feminist" unless you consider it radically feminist to think men and women are both human beings who should be treated like people, and that laws should protect people from sexism, racism, sexuality discrimination, religious discrimination, etc, because not everyone always lives up to their better natures and that's just better for society as a whole to protect through legislation. Most of that legislation, in the case of sexism, exists. So. . . I'm usually more fighting for freedom of religion and sexuality (gay and transgendered rights) to be honest. And, really, I never start any conversations about feminism on these boards. Fellows do for some reason. EDIT* I also don't understand why you think Sabali's comment is objectifying you? In no way is there anything sexual about this post. He's only making light fun of our arguing, not objectifying you as some porno star everyone wants to bang. Most objectifying in the world isn't sexual. Men and women are both objectified by people every day. I'm asserting my ideas, and you, he, and others are continually making it about something else, writing about me as though I'm not an actual human being on the other end here when you or he put up such posts. There have been a good number here, some well-intentioned others ill-intentioned, but all in the same vein. Making it about people wanting (or not wanting) to date me has been a running theme for some strange reason.
dispatch3d Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Well, I suppose I should clarify I think attraction can only be generated with unhealthy people. The "Treat 'Em Mean, Keep 'Em Keen" game for women and various games for me only work with unhealthy people. If you dig unhealthy people, control games can work wonders. The OP didn't sound like a jerk just out to screw the girl, and who wants to get into a relationship with a potentially unhealthy person? So. . . I ignored all those avenues. Generally, I ignore them. They don't make anyone happy, certainly not long-term, and people just go on feeling frustrated and unfulfilled. Attraction can be generated and it works better on healthy people. Watch this video: Yes, I'm suggesting an inner change. I don't think I'm suggesting a game at all. I'm suggesting being a person who is able to attract what you want. First of all, that book is absolutely atrocious. And dated. The worst blind date I ever went on some guy kept blabbering on and on about it. What a tool. Men who read that and think they've learned something about women (or vice versa) are living in a different era than myself. There are much better studies and research to rely on. Social anthropology is a hobby of mine, and I totally dig learning about people. I always recommend it. Have you read this "atrocious" and "dated" book. Or did you form a negative opinion on the book because of one bad blind date with a socially awkward guy? Do you not read these books because by doing so this somehow implies you are bad with men? And this implication goes against one of your most inner beliefs - that you are awesome with guys?
dispatch3d Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 ahhh **** here's the full video: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2009352446961728591# here's his interview: http://www.growyourgame.com/articles/interviews/keys-to-the-vip-is-it-real-interview-with-derek-cajun/ wah wah.....
zengirl Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) Attraction can be generated and it works better on healthy people. Watch this video: Have you read this "atrocious" and "dated" book. Or did you form a negative opinion on the book because of one bad blind date with a socially awkward guy? Do you not read these books because by doing so this somehow implies you are bad with men? And this implication goes against one of your most inner beliefs - that you are awesome with guys? No, I've read the book before. And many other crap books like that. Back before I discovered what actually made me healthy. And I certainly wasn't always awesome with men, or even classify myself as that now. . . I think I'm pretty good with people, in general. At least with finding the people who work in my life and building a community that works for me. I think a lot of it comes down to us talking about two different things: PUA aren't looking for a serious real partnership/relationship. . . and we may have very different standards of healthy too. If the OP in question wants to become a guy who beds 100+ girls and doesn't care about them, my advice will never, ever work. I'll admit that flat-out. You talk about such things around the forums, so I think our POVs are just different. (And this isn't just a male/female thing; I know women who are into casual sex, and fellows who genuinely want caring, deep partnerships and aren't so into casual sex or even actively eschew it when presented to them, though that's rarer. I've seen the whole spectrum.) Edited August 4, 2010 by zengirl
dispatch3d Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 No, I've read the book before. And many other crap books like that. Back before I discovered what actually made me healthy. And I certainly wasn't always awesome with men, or even classify myself as that now. . . I think I'm pretty good with people, in general. At least with finding the people who work in my life and building a community that works for me. I think a lot of it comes down to us talking about two different things: PUA aren't looking for a serious real partnership/relationship. . . and we may have very different standards of healthy too. If the OP in question wants to become a guy who beds 100+ girls and doesn't care about them, my advice will never, ever work. I'll admit that flat-out. You talk about such things around the forums, so I think our POVs are just different. (And this isn't just a male/female thing; I know women who are into casual sex, and fellows who genuinely want caring, deep partnerships and aren't so into casual sex or even actively eschew it when presented to them, though that's rarer. I've seen the whole spectrum.) this is another VERY common fallacy of people who don't read pickup who have an opinion of it. Knowing PUA tactics/being a PUA, or figuring out ways to sleep with women tells you NOTHING of the intent of the person. It's just the avenue they take to get what they want. There are pua's who are looking for meaningful connections. There are others who just want to bang a ton of broads (I find them hilarious lol). Their opinions are about as varied as any male. The difference is they have a choice. They can CHOOSE to just get their number up as high as they want. Or they can CHOOSE to get involved in a long relationship. Or they can CHOOSE to get into multiple long term relationships (wtf? I know it doesn't even sound believable but wtf do I care). The fact is the advice to bed 100+ girls can EASILY be used to bed THE ONE girl you want to be with for a while (forever is kinda long!). You're generally experience has been that the ones who are really good, tend to be players. The other ones who aren't so good tend to want long relationships. PUA material ****s up the balance because all the ones who wanted long relationships are all the sudden capable of being the players... It's their choice whether they want to sleep with lots of women or just weed out a bunch of them and pick a really good one.
zengirl Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) this is another VERY common fallacy of people who don't read pickup who have an opinion of it. Knowing PUA tactics/being a PUA, or figuring out ways to sleep with women tells you NOTHING of the intent of the person. It's just the avenue they take to get what they want. There are pua's who are looking for meaningful connections. There are others who just want to bang a ton of broads (I find them hilarious lol). Their opinions are about as varied as any male. The difference is they have a choice. They can CHOOSE to just get their number up as high as they want. Or they can CHOOSE to get involved in a long relationship. Or they can CHOOSE to get into multiple long term relationships (wtf? I know it doesn't even sound believable but wtf do I care). The fact is the advice to bed 100+ girls can EASILY be used to bed THE ONE girl you want to be with for a while (forever is kinda long!). You're generally experience has been that the ones who are really good, tend to be players. The other ones who aren't so good tend to want long relationships. PUA material ****s up the balance because all the ones who wanted long relationships are all the sudden capable of being the players... It's their choice whether they want to sleep with lots of women or just weed out a bunch of them and pick a really good one. Yeah, we have way different worldviews. I know men who are excellent at getting attractive, wonderful women to date them and yet very picky. They don't seek to sleep with 100+ girls or even give themselves the option to as some sort of priority in their lives, and find that idea creepy past a certain age (usually somewhere around mid-twenties). I've met these men. They're more my type. They're not "incapable" of being players, except due to their priorities. And they don't view forever as a long time. Believe me, I get viewing forever as a long time. I've been there too. It's a complex world we live in. But there's no doubt that these systems seek control. They seek the ability to get various impersonal options and keep them, for whatever you decide you want, and, really. . . that doesn't work in forming meaningful connections. Any meaningful connections formed would be incidental and probably instigate internal change. And they'd be rare. A smaller percentage. But it's not some fallacy of not-knowing things that makes me think the way I do. It's my experiences and worldview. Your statements of my general experience are inaccurate, though. It's not that I've some great thing against players, or that most of the attractive men I've met who were good with women were players (not really true at all). It's about the way you talk about things and the way these PUA phrase things. It cannot be a meaningful connection if it's all about having a vast amount of "choices" to such a degree. . . it's not that we shouldn't all choose our partners (and very carefully!), it's the WAY you write it here, the way things are intended, that makes it controlling. It's about getting what they want, or worse the image of what they think they want, sometimes at the expense of others. It's egoistic. Everything you're talking about with choice comes down to valuing power highly. I think that's common in a lot of people. It's not my thing. Edited August 4, 2010 by zengirl
dispatch3d Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 Yeah, we have way different worldviews. I know men who are excellent at getting attractive, wonderful women to date them and yet very picky. They don't seek to sleep with 100+ girls or even give themselves the option to as some sort of priority in their lives, and find that idea creepy past a certain age (usually somewhere around mid-twenties). I've met these men. They're more my type. They're not "incapable" of being players, except due to their priorities. And they don't view forever as a long time. Believe me, I get viewing forever as a long time. I've been there too. It's a complex world we live in. But there's no doubt that these systems seek control. They seek the ability to get various impersonal options and keep them, for whatever you decide you want, and, really. . . that doesn't work in forming meaningful connections. Any meaningful connections formed would be incidental and probably instigate internal change. And they'd be rare. A smaller percentage. But it's not some fallacy of not-knowing things that makes me think the way I do. It's my experiences and worldview. Your statements of my general experience are inaccurate, though. It's not that I've some great thing against players, or that most of the attractive men I've met who were good with women were players (not really true at all). It's about the way you talk about things and the way these PUA phrase things. It cannot be a meaningful connection if it's all about having a vast amount of "choices" to such a degree. . . it's not that we shouldn't all choose our partners (and very carefully!), it's the WAY you write it here, the way things are intended, that makes it controlling. It's about getting what they want, or worse the image of what they think they want, sometimes at the expense of others. It's egoistic. Everything you're talking about with choice comes down to valuing power highly. I think that's common in a lot of people. It's not my thing. You keep implying I'm trying to sleep with over 100 girls. I'm not. There is NO INHERENT DIFFERENCE between guys who study pickup+do it well, and these guys who are somehow "above" picking up chicks. Guess what, they ain't above it. They just can't do it (so they don't attempt it). They also don't have to. If you met me you'd have NO IDEA I read this stuff. Because I tell noone since people like you form 1 million negative opinions simply because I read a book. and to say you don't get real self improvement from the book is just wrong. There are even methods that involve NO CANNED material whatsoever. It's just going up to women and talking o them exactly how you described. It's called "natural" game. The stuff that's publiscized (mystery method etc.) is the more structured stuff. Notice that you had very little to disagree with what I said before you knew I read things. Afterwards you all the sudden think I'm some sort of evil. Lol.
zengirl Posted August 4, 2010 Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) You keep implying I'm trying to sleep with over 100 girls. I'm not. There is NO INHERENT DIFFERENCE between guys who study pickup+do it well, and these guys who are somehow "above" picking up chicks. Guess what, they ain't above it. They just can't do it (so they don't attempt it). They also don't have to. If you met me you'd have NO IDEA I read this stuff. Because I tell noone since people like you form 1 million negative opinions simply because I read a book. and to say you don't get real self improvement from the book is just wrong. There are even methods that involve NO CANNED material whatsoever. It's just going up to women and talking o them exactly how you described. It's called "natural" game. The stuff that's publiscized (mystery method etc.) is the more structured stuff. Notice that you had very little to disagree with what I said before you knew I read things. Afterwards you all the sudden think I'm some sort of evil. Lol. It's not about whether you're trying to sleep with 100+ girls, but that you've discussed that in other posts. You've admitted wanting to study those people. Finding them as experts. To me, they're sad and broken people. I've never met someone who slept with loads of girls that was a happy person. I've never met someone who slept with loads of girls that didn't sacrifice some of their own human kindness and empathy to do it. I'm not vilifying all of these men. Some of my close male friends are like this. I see what it does to them, and it doesn't help them to be happy. (I'm not saying everyone has to seek uber-serious relationships. As I do know people -- men and women -- who will have casual sex who are happy and healthy.) Just as going through the motions to keep a fellow in an unhealthy relationship doesn't make a woman happy. I'm not saying some of the methods aren't exactly like what I've described. I think most of these books take perfectly healthy things and mimic them without the actual emotional health. It's like covering a mole with make-up. It's still there if you do. If there's a way to remove it, by getting emotionally healthy, the make-up only contributes to people not doing the work to do so. That's more my issue with those books. I don't think you're evil. We just have different views of health, different worldviews, and different experiences, as I said. I tend to think if I met you I'd notice your need to control the interactions you have, because I do notice that kind of thing even subtly, but I have no way of knowing of course. For the record, I don't think reading anything hurts. I've read the little red book. It didn't make me a Communist. I've read the Bible. It didn't make me a Christian. Reading PUA stuff doesn't make any guy controlling. But you are investing in it and showing it here as some sort of essential truth. That strikes me as odd. That's what I mean for there being different motivations. When you are actually healthy (my view), you don't need "inner game" because you have inner health, which is infinitely better at making you both happy and successful (in everything, including dating). So, even though some of our methods may be different, I still distinguish intentions a lot. Because intentions say a lot about that health to me. Doing something that works halfway, that prevents you from seeking real emotional health, is what a lot of people do. . . I would never find that advisable. Edited August 4, 2010 by zengirl
meerkat stew Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I think most of these books take perfectly healthy things and mimic them without the actual emotional health. It's like covering a mole with make-up. It's still there if you do. If there's a way to remove it, by getting emotionally healthy, the make-up only contributes to people not doing the work to do so. That's more my issue with those books. I'm not a follower of PUA culture, but have read some of it, and agree that most of it is common sense. What many fail to realize with this stuff is that though the "star" practitioners of it use bedding lots of women to sell their wares, that's not the focus for most guys who gravitate to it. Most are completely inept in their attempts to just get a date or even flirt, let alone seduce. Most of the men who get into this stuff do so in hopes of getting a girlfriend or having normal dating relationships, not notching bedposts. For those types of people, it isn't necessarily putting an emotionally unhealthy veneer on, but using a crutch to "fake it til you make it" and IMO there's nothing wrong with that. Women wear makeup without being called false, most of these PUA techniques are the equivalent of makeup for men.
dispatch3d Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 You would notice I can control interactions pretty often. I save my friends from situations because I can skew things in whatever direction I want. Like if they are getting kicked out of a bar (I can only do so much here though). Or if some girl randomly decides to tell another girl off in front of 20-30 of her friends.....
zengirl Posted August 5, 2010 Posted August 5, 2010 I'm not a follower of PUA culture, but have read some of it, and agree that most of it is common sense. What many fail to realize with this stuff is that though the "star" practitioners of it use bedding lots of women to sell their wares, that's not the focus for most guys who gravitate to it. Most are completely inept in their attempts to just get a date or even flirt, let alone seduce. Most of the men who get into this stuff do so in hopes of getting a girlfriend or having normal dating relationships, not notching bedposts. For those types of people, it isn't necessarily putting an emotionally unhealthy veneer on, but using a crutch to "fake it til you make it" and IMO there's nothing wrong with that. Women wear makeup without being called false, most of these PUA techniques are the equivalent of makeup for men. First, I do realize that most people who use it aren't successfully bedding 100+ women. . . that thread of conversation came up from me noticing dispatch3d talking about PUA on another thread and saying those are the experts that should do certain sociological studies (men who successfully sleep with loads of women). Second, I don't think "fake it till you make it" is always bad. . . the issue with these sorts of sources of advice is they don't tell you what you're doing is faking healthy behaviors, so you have no idea you still need to "make it" so to speak. That's what makes them weak and dangerous. Third, I disagree with it being the same as make-up. (Then again, I don't wear make-up that alters the way I look, really. I wear make-up that seems fun to me. . . so it expresses some part of myself.) I did use the analogy for make-up, but I think it only works to be the same when you use it in such a way that the make-up is covering up something totally fixable. If you never wash your face and cake loads of make-up on to cover up bad skin, I'd say that's unhealthy too. That's closer to how I see these things than the normal way women use make-up (for fun or polish). You would notice I can control interactions pretty often. I save my friends from situations because I can skew things in whatever direction I want. Like if they are getting kicked out of a bar (I can only do so much here though). Or if some girl randomly decides to tell another girl off in front of 20-30 of her friends..... I understand you have the illusion of your control. To me, it is an illusion. . . I have felt the exact same way about being able to "control" situations. I generally refer women with such ideas to Dorothy Parker's poem, "The Lady's Reward," which ends with And if that makes you happy, Kid, You'd be the first it ever did. But, yes, I would definitely notice. I can spot control a mile away. Not to say you're a bad person----only some people give up on the idea of control. Then again, most people experience a lot of needless suffering from what I can see. It's hard to explain the way I see things to someone who's still inside the control mindset though.
zengirl Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 However, what is bad is that you are using the term "aggressive" inaptly, as there is nothing whatsoever "aggressive" about a man (or woman) expressing their healthy, respectful sexual interest in another human being. There is no innate dichotomy between "friendship" and "sexual attraction," the concepts are not even polar, not even on the same scale of kinds of human interaction, but I find many women make the mistake of believing they are these days for whatever reason. There is nothing inherently "unfriendly" or hostile about seducing someone, asking them on a date, or even attempting to interest someone in having consensual sexual relations. It is not an attempt to "get something" or "take something" from you, but to involve you in a mutually satisfying experience. I just saw this. The aggressive thing stemmed from a conversational thread where another poster brought up that the OP should be engaged in kino, light touching, etc, with a stranger the fellow had NOT asked out yet. Even mentioning grabbing the gal. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in asking her out on a date. I do think it's smarter to speak to a person for a few minutes just to find out if they're someone you'd actually like to spend a few hours with and get them to do the same. It was the manner in which it was suggested I was citing as aggressive. Just asking a gal out in a healthy, open manner where you're allowing the possibility of friendly (not friends. . . but without anger) rejection is assertive and totally not aggressive or a problem at all. FWIW. I do think building up to it (with a basic social interaction; I'm not talking hours---I'm talking 10 minutes here) is more effective, so we disagree there, but I don't think it's aggressive to ask her out. Just the way the other poster was suggesting.
BS76 Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 (edited) I think a lot of it comes down to us talking about two different things: PUA aren't looking for a serious real partnership/relationship. And that's where your argument falls apart. You are assuming you know the motives of all men who are trying to improve their skills with women. Here's a tip: you don't! As others have already stated Game merely gives men choice and some control over their dating life. What they do with it is up to them. Edited August 7, 2010 by BS76
zengirl Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 And that's where your argument falls apart. You are assuming you know the motives of all men who are trying to improve their skills with women. Here's a tip: you don't! As others have already stated Game merely gives men choice and some control over their dating life. What they do with it is up to them. I assume their motive is control. You've just said it is. . . so sounds like I was right. Real relationships aren't about control. That is the one thing I've learned in my whole life that I'm sure about.
meerkat stew Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 Third, I disagree with it being the same as make-up. (Then again, I don't wear make-up that alters the way I look, really. I wear make-up that seems fun to me. . . so it expresses some part of myself.) I did use the analogy for make-up, but I think it only works to be the same when you use it in such a way that the make-up is covering up something totally fixable. If you never wash your face and cake loads of make-up on to cover up bad skin, I'd say that's unhealthy too. That's closer to how I see these things than the normal way women use make-up (for fun or polish). You are needlessly complicating the analogy here. Women use makeup to make themselves more attractive. Men use PUA techniques to make themselves more attractive. They are different tools with the exact same utility. Yet women are not called false, dishonest or deceitful for using makeup. Why are men who choose to use whatever method they choose, PUA or anything else, to improve their skills with the opposite sex judged any differently than women who wear makeup? A man looks at a woman and thinks, "wow she has nice hair," nice hair that is likely dyed and enhanced in other ways, maybe even with extensions. A woman looks at a man and thinks "wow he's really cool looking," when his "look" came straight out of a PUA manual. What is the difference? None.
zengirl Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 You are needlessly complicating the analogy here. Women use makeup to make themselves more attractive. Men use PUA techniques to make themselves more attractive. They are different tools with the exact same utility. Yet women are not called false, dishonest or deceitful for using makeup. Why are men who choose to use whatever method they choose, PUA or anything else, to improve their skills with the opposite sex judged any differently than women who wear makeup? A man looks at a woman and thinks, "wow she has nice hair," nice hair that is likely dyed and enhanced in other ways, maybe even with extensions. A woman looks at a man and thinks "wow he's really cool looking," when his "look" came straight out of a PUA manual. What is the difference? None. Let me simplify it for you: Make-up is a physical thing. PUA techniques change your actions. Elaboration: If a fellow dyes his hair, to be more attractive, I don't find it "dishonest." He's making a change he wants to his physical form, and that is an action that's true to him. If he lied about it, I'd find it silly and dishonest. Doing some of the same things in PUA techniques are fine if they are the actions you innately want to take, but if you are consciously using them to replace the actions that are true to you to manipulate someone, that's controlling and dishonest. I've no issue with someone manipulating their physical form, somewhat (I also think piling on loads of makeup is silly, if it significantly changes the way you look, but whatever; you can always tell when someone is doing so, so it's perfectly honest), but I have huge issues with someone manipulating their actions, unless they're actually seeking personal growth and a personality change that's healthy for them and not about controlling others.
meerkat stew Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 (edited) Let me simplify it for you: Make-up is a physical thing. PUA techniques change your actions. Sorry, but you are mistaken there. The very first plank in PUA is improving your appearance as much as possible, physical shape, posture, hairstyle, clothing, etc. even more esoteric techniques such as "peacocking" are identical to what women would call "accessorizing." I'd go so far as to say this is 50% of the entire process. Of course you hear more about things like verbal patter and kino because they are more interesting and make more provocative copy. The foundation, though, is physical appearance. The next plank is attitude, confidence, poise, standing up for yourself, not being a pushover, dealing with rejection, persistence, "inner game" and almost all of that stuff is applicable in all human interactions, work, family, dating, etc.. Then you get to the specific tricks or techniques, really just the icing on the cake. Most of the ire against PUA is focused on these last things, though they are really a small part of the whole equation. Doing some of the same things in PUA techniques are fine if they are the actions you innately want to take, but if you are consciously using them to replace the actions that are true to you to manipulate someone, that's controlling and dishonest. Give some specific examples here or you are just parroting the naysayers. Let's take the old "cocky/funny" for example. Is that really being false? or just acting as you normally would when not intimidated or uncomfortable around women or a specific woman? So where is the real falseness, in reacting how you normally would with any acquaintance, or being cowed into supplicating behavior because of nerves, intimidation or bad advice from well-meaning family and friends? See the distinction? It applies fairly universally to most of the techniques I've read about that people like to dismiss as deceptive tricks. Edited August 8, 2010 by meerkat stew
zengirl Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 Sorry, but you are mistaken there. The very first plank in PUA is improving your appearance as much as possible, physical shape, posture, hairstyle, clothing, etc. even more esoteric techniques such as "peacocking" are identical to what women would call "accessorizing." I'd go so far as to say this is 50% of the entire process. Of course you hear more about things like verbal patter and kino because they are more interesting and make more provocative copy. The foundation, though, is physical appearance. Oh, I'm talking about "techniques" which is what I meant the more process-driven points. I've no issue with articles that say, "Hey, get in shape to attract women." (Except it's like common sense, right?) The next plank is attitude, confidence, poise, standing up for yourself, not being a pushover, dealing with rejection, persistence, "inner game" and almost all of that stuff is applicable in all human interactions, work, family, dating, etc.. I've not a huge problem with this, except the tone in which most sources write about it. I'm more about inner health, which gives you real confidence, etc. Same thing with advice to women. Then you get to the specific tricks or techniques, really just the icing on the cake. Most of the ire against PUA is focused on these last things, though they are really a small part of the whole equation. These are the "techniques" and they're what I think is lame. To be specific, I'll point out the whole "Insult and Recover" thing, as I think this is potentially the lamest one of all. (I'm not going to give a specific insult, because the point isn't "Oh, he wasn't doing it well then," the point is the attitude behind it.) This is a fellow saying, "That girl is really attractive, and it makes me insecure, so let me find an insecurity to bring out in a 'playful' way, and then compliment her to fill the vacuum I've created, so she'll go out with me." That doesn't mean that if it is your personality, it's terrible to ever be sarcastic or silly or playful with a girl. It means don't consciously try to control the situation. Really, just make yourself the best, most attractive person you can be, and then be assertive, interesting, and honest, and life gets pretty easy. PUA is generally (if not read for pure entertainment) a ticket to repressing true health and using a crutch instead. The same can be said of loads of similar advice for women! A man being healthy, confident, himself, and attractive as possible will not get ire from me. A man going on about "inner game" or these lame techniques will. I'm not saying fawn all over the girl and be a doormat and don't improve your appearance. I'm saying don't go in needing to control every little thing, because healthy people don't even try to do that, and emotional healthy IS sexy and productive to building healthy relationships. Does that make sense?
Yamaha Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 Men want to get laid and PUA techniques are the holy grail for upping interest. I guess they help if a guy's mind goes blank when talking to a girl he's interested in but they are all about the short term. If you have to manipulate situations to "score" then what happens when people want to discover the real you? If you lie to gain interest that same interest will die when the truth comes out. I used to have a line/joke I said to many women in the course of conversation. I asked them if they knew there were 268 bones in their/human body? When they said, "no. I didn't know that", I would reply, "want to make it 269?" It was good for a laugh which was the point....
meerkat stew Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 To be specific, I'll point out the whole "Insult and Recover" thing, as I think this is potentially the lamest one of all. (I'm not going to give a specific insult, because the point isn't "Oh, he wasn't doing it well then," the point is the attitude behind it.) This is a fellow saying, "That girl is really attractive, and it makes me insecure, so let me find an insecurity to bring out in a 'playful' way, and then compliment her to fill the vacuum I've created, so she'll go out with me." Do you really think that kind of thing is going to "zombify" a woman and make her magically attracted to a man she felt nothing for otherwise? If so you have quite a low opinion of women's powers of discernment and self-control. The point is, these techniques do not work in a vacuum and they aren't magic words that shred panties, you can't just separate them out of the whole, a woman who wasn't already attracted to a man's looks, style or presence (the iceberg of PUA of which the gimmicky tricks and techniques are just the tip) isn't going to suddenly fall at the man's feet because he teased her. What they will do is make her remember him in a crowd, and get her thinking about him. Any press is good press as the saying goes. Or would you rather men trot out the same tired old pickup lines they have been spouting since prohibition was lifted? Isn't a more socially aware, charming male a good thing for women overall? I have heard women complaining my entire adult life about men not being romantic enough. Now, the minute men start to address this issue in an effort to make women "feel" more, the complaint is that we are insincere. Is there any way at all to make women happy? or will they complain no matter what men do? That last question is rhetorical, I know the answer already.
zengirl Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 Do you really think that kind of thing is going to "zombify" a woman and make her magically attracted to a man she felt nothing for otherwise? If so you have quite a low opinion of women's powers of discernment and self-control. No. I didn't suggest it would work. (It might help with some tragically unhealthy people though, who like those sort of cycles.) I think it's pretty lame, though, and I personally think it can actually work to help kill a healthy woman's attraction to you! The point is, these techniques do not work in a vacuum and they aren't magic words that shred panties, you can't just separate them out of the whole, a woman who wasn't already attracted to a man's looks, style or presence (the iceberg of PUA of which the gimmicky tricks and techniques are just the tip) isn't going to suddenly fall at the man's feet because he teased her. What they will do is make her remember him in a crowd, and get her thinking about him. Any press is good press as the saying goes. Or would you rather men trot out the same tired old pickup lines they have been spouting since prohibition was lifted? Isn't a more socially aware, charming male a good thing for women overall? I have heard women complaining my entire adult life about men not being romantic enough. Now, the minute men start to address this issue in an effort to make women "feel" more, the complaint is that we are insincere. Is there any way at all to make women happy? or will they complain no matter what men do? That last question is rhetorical, I know the answer already. I'd rather men just be themselves. Women too. And work on actual self-improvement, rather than tips and tricks to get other people to like them more. I don't find short-cuts, cover-ups, or quick-fixes attractive, and I think ALL people seek them far too often. I know some men and women who do this, and I think they're the best people. They are also the folks who can laugh at this sort of advice for men or the sister-advice for women ("Why Men Marry Bitches" etc) and see it for what it is. Also, the tone of a lot of those articles (and their sister-advice for women) is controlling. That's what really makes them appalling to me. It's not written in a tone that says, "Here's how to make other people happy"---it's "Here's how to get what you want from other people." Even if you do the exact same things, if you do them with different intentions, the results are different because intentions matter a lot in interpersonal dynamics (they can be "felt" even when they can't be known consciously). . . that's my thoughts.
Recommended Posts