Was she flirting with me? If so, how should I have approached her?

[meerkat stew]

I'd rather men just be themselves.

 

Really? Are the charming vamps in the Anne Rice novels and kiddy Twilight movies "being themselves?" how bout the Fabio men in romance novels, or the foils in Sex & the City? the romantic leads in every movie ever made? Was Cary Grant just being himself? Women have been asking men to "not be themselves" at least in the romance department for eons. You may truly want men to be themselves, but I will wager most women want men to be more romantic, seductive, adventurous, right brained, less predictable versions of themselves.

 

What if being himself means half pissing his pants every time an attractive woman makes eye contact with him, or having never had a date, being a virgin at 30, still want him to "be himself?" Is that truly helpful advice for such a man?

 

I don't find short-cuts, cover-ups, or quick-fixes attractive, and I think ALL people seek them far too often.

 

You may not find them attractive, but you are not the target audience, a desperate, often poorly socialized man who is utterly terrified of women, and has had that terror reinforced over and over by constant rejection. Put yourself in that person's shoes for a minute, is telling him he can change a woman's mind with a few words so bad as a start to get him to enact change in his life? to get him in the door? Is telling him he gets to tease and even insult women who have teased and insulted him viciously his whole life really so bad? I submit it isn't really a big deal.

 

The relationship industry has been a female only industry since inception, is allowing men a niche in it so bad? Isn't PUA just a male version of Cosmopolitan and the ilk?

 

 

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."

 

What advertising copy is or has ever been written from an altruistic point of view other than a few charities? Isn't every relationship book written for a female audience a guide to "getting what you want?"

 

I never liked "The Rules," as advice for women, not because it was manipulative (and it was, moreso than any PUA techniques), but because it landed women with weak, undesirable men who would soon become very boring. The difference is that the audience for most PUA product is not even to the point of estimating desirable women, but still stuck at the gate of being able to get ANY female attention or acceptance AT ALL.

[zengirl]

Really? Are the charming vamps in the Anne Rice novels and kiddy Twilight movies "being themselves?" how bout the Fabio men in romance novels, or the foils in Sex & the City? the romantic leads in every movie ever made? Was Cary Grant just being himself? Women have been asking men to "not be themselves" at least in the romance department for eons. You may truly want men to be themselves, but I will wager most women want men to be more romantic, seductive, adventurous, right brained, less predictable versions of themselves.

 

Do you think either vampire novels or Sex and the City portray healthy dating dynamics?

 

As far as the Cary Grant characters, I can think of several that were generally being themselves. My favorite Cary Grant movie is The Philadelphia Story, and it's not until everybody is being honest about who they are that he gets the girl (again). Bummer for Jimmy Stewart and the guy with the horses, though. And that was a screwball comedy that featured divorce back in the day, so I'm sure it wasn't meant to be the picture of health either.

 

I don't really expect my life to be like a movie. That's not to say it never has fun and romance, but it is way longer than an hour and a half, and as such, needs a stronger foundation.

 

What if being himself means half pissing his pants every time an attractive woman makes eye contact with him, or having never had a date, being a virgin at 30, still want him to "be himself?" Is that truly helpful advice for such a man?

Well, "be yourself" isn't helpful advice for anyone in general. People could use genuine tips on how to improve themselves without it being under the guise of a quick fix or manipulating others. Those tips are going to vary, depending upon what the person is lacking or needs to change. There are very few books that do that, and some are still the oldest. Man, I've learned a lot more that's helped me with people from reading the Dalai Lama's books than any cheesy self-help book.

 

I'm not saying: Stay that person. I'm saying keep the parts of you that you like and sincerely change the parts that you don't, but don't use cover-up strategies to keep yourself from having to do the hard work of growth and change, because they won't make you happy in the long-run. Everyone has their own path to get to be their best selves, but there are no canned tips that help for everyone there. Certainly, there are things that can help.

 

You may not find them attractive, but you are not the target audience, a desperate, often poorly socialized man who is utterly terrified of women, and has had that terror reinforced over and over by constant rejection. Put yourself in that person's shoes for a minute, is telling him he can change a woman's mind with a few words so bad as a start to get him to enact change in his life? to get him in the door? Is telling him he gets to tease and even insult women who have teased and insulted him viciously his whole life really so bad? I submit it isn't really a big deal.

Yeah, I think it's bad because it encourages twisted change, rather than healthy self-driven change. I mean, I don't think it should be criminalized or anything, but I think it's bad. I think saying, "Hey you feel out of control . . . here, use these tricks to control others," is pretty terrible. Lose the illusion of control. Acceptance is the key to happiness.

 

The relationship industry has been a female only industry since inception, is allowing men a niche in it so bad? Isn't PUA just a male version of Cosmopolitan and the ilk?

I've dissed the woman's version too. I feel the same way on Cosmopolitan tips on how to manipulate men. Fashion magazines and make-up tips are fine, as is a lot of the stuff in GQ about similar things.

 

What advertising copy is or has ever been written from an altruistic point of view other than a few charities? Isn't every relationship book written for a female audience a guide to "getting what you want?"

 

I never liked "The Rules," as advice for women, not because it was manipulative (and it was, moreso than any PUA techniques), but because it landed women with weak, undesirable men who would soon become very boring. The difference is that the audience for most PUA product is not even to the point of estimating desirable women, but still stuck at the gate of being able to get ANY female attention or acceptance AT ALL.

The thing is, everyone realizes that advertising copy is a blatant attempt at market manipulation in this day and age. So, it doesn't bother me. We realize it's fake, and telling us a story, and in that way, it's like entertainment. I'm cool with that. Just as I said, maybe this PUA junk for entertainment might be fine. But when someone takes advertising as some kind of truth, I find that odd too.

 

I don't like The Rules either, but mainly because it's about control. I don't like anything that implies the key to happiness is controlling every situation in your life or other people, because I personally find happiness to be completely repellent of that.

 

The fact that it most preys upon the most disabled in that area doesn't make it a selling point to me.

Edited August 8, 2010 by zengirl

[meerkat stew]

Do you think either vampire novels or Sex and the City portray healthy dating dynamics?

 

Point.... missed.

 

As far as the Cary Grant characters, I can think of several that were generally being themselves.

 

Point is that movies are a general reflection of the desires and fantasies of the audience. In most movies, male leads relate to women as either a charming doofus or a charming rogue, often with a little mild deception thrown in that the women don't mind at all, even respond favorably to (aw you did that for me? how romantic!). PUA techniques = alternatively "charming doofus" or "charming rogue."

 

Well, "be yourself" isn't helpful advice for anyone in general. People could use genuine tips on how to improve themselves without it being under the guise of a quick fix or manipulating others.

 

Most advertising is centered around obtaining results that are out of proportion to the effort expended. "Drive this truck and become a rugged individualist with an adventure-packed life." "Spray this cleaner anywhere near the shower and all the grime in your tub will magically disappear." PUA promises and ads should be viewed no differently.

 

I'm not saying: Stay that person. I'm saying keep the parts of you that you like and sincerely change the parts that you don't, but don't use cover-up strategies to keep yourself from having to do the hard work of growth and change, because they won't make you happy in the long-run. Everyone has their own path to get to be their best selves, but there are no canned tips that help for everyone there. Certainly, there are things that can help.

 

No one would disagree with this, but why are you holding the ad copy of PUA to a different standard than other advertising? One ad tells a socially dejected man, "After a few years of hard work, we can help you attract women," another tells the same audience "repeat these magic words and women will jump in your bed!" Company B sells a ton of product, which in the end involves helping a man transform slowly into a better socializer. Company A goes bankrupt in a month. Two diet plans, one touts, "You can lose 50 pounds of fat in a year by adhering to a strict diet and heavy exercise regimen! Only $19.95!" Another touts, "Take the wabambo extract pill and drop 40 pounds in 30 days!" Which sells more?

 

Same kind of marketing principles apply to the PUA technique. Point I'm trying to make is I believe you may be viewing PUA culture through the lens of its advertising rather than the substance underneath. I was the exact same until I actually started -READING- some of the stuff. For example, there is a "Book of Pook" out there that I read several years back after being cheated on and examining my own relationship skills, a free book several have mentioned here, that is cram full of excellent advice for socially awkward men, -none- of which involves manipulation or deception. Go read some of this "Book of Pook" and then get back to me. It is more representative of PUA culture than the "gimmicky" techniques.

[zengirl]

Point.... missed.

 

I didn't miss your point. I just didn't agree with it or see any need to validate it whatsoever. It's a silly point.

 

 

 

Point is that movies are a general reflection of the desires and fantasies of the audience. In most movies, male leads relate to women as either a charming doofus or a charming rogue, often with a little mild deception thrown in that the women don't mind at all, even respond favorably to (aw you did that for me? how romantic!). PUA techniques = alternatively "charming doofus" or "charming rogue."

 

I see movies as escapism. We don't want to actually LIVE that way. Take the movie "Say Anything." That is a charming, classic love film. If anyone actually did the things Cusack does in the movie, they would be creepy and weird and he'd never get the girl. Anybody with one iota of sense knows this and knows that it is just a movie. Also, everyone is beautiful (mostly) in movies. Beautiful people can get away with a lot. I don't see movies as good reflections of how we should behave.

 

The other thing with movies is they are generally 3rd person. So, they show us the intentions (good or ill) of the characters and that builds our perceptions of them more than their actions. In real life, you cannot see a person's intentions, but behaving like a character in a movie for certain results would be much creepier than that character behaving as they are, based on their own psychology as a character. You rarely see a character in a movie behaving in such a way that they are imitating a behavior of another, to manipulate a situation or someone else, and it is "charming" and not at all part of a "lesson" the story has set them up to learn. Intentions are everything!

 

Most advertising is centered around obtaining results that are out of proportion to the effort expended. "Drive this truck and become a rugged individualist with an adventure-packed life." "Spray this cleaner anywhere near the shower and all the grime in your tub will magically disappear." PUA promises and ads should be viewed no differently.

 

And anyone who actually believes such false perceptions as projected in an advertisement --- that the truck has such magical powers --- is someone I regard as an idiot. Really.

 

No one would disagree with this, but why are you holding the ad copy of PUA to a different standard than other advertising? One ad tells a socially dejected man, "After a few years of hard work, we can help you attract women," another tells the same audience "repeat these magic words and women will jump in your bed!" Company B sells a ton of product, which in the end involves helping a man transform slowly into a better socializer. Company A goes bankrupt in a month. Two diet plans, one touts, "You can lose 50 pounds of fat in a year by adhering to a strict diet and heavy exercise regimen! Only $19.95!" Another touts, "Take the wabambo extract pill and drop 40 pounds in 30 days!" Which sells more?

 

I think all of that is lame. If someone cited that diet pill based on its advertisement here in a thread, I would also criticize that. I'm not holding them to different standards. (Except that it's not as bad to sacrifice your own health or money as it is to endeavor -- even if it doesn't work -- to manipulate others.) Why are you insisting I not criticize it when people take seriously obviously fake things?

 

Same kind of marketing principles apply to the PUA technique. Point I'm trying to make is I believe you may be viewing PUA culture through the lens of its advertising rather than the substance underneath. I was the exact same until I actually started -READING- some of the stuff. For example, there is a "Book of Pook" out there that I read several years back after being cheated on and examining my own relationship skills, a free book several have mentioned here, that is cram full of excellent advice for socially awkward men, -none- of which involves manipulation or deception. Go read some of this "Book of Pook" and then get back to me. It is more representative of PUA culture than the "gimmicky" techniques.

 

The stuff started from a fellow citing PUA crap that was representative of the same drivel I've seen with these techniques. I'm not really going to spend my time analyzing all the PUA in the world to judge its "culture." If an article sparks a person to do true self-analysis and change themselves, I wouldn't judge them for that, as long as they can recognize crap for crap. I do judge anyone who cites obviously manipulative PUA as some sort of revolutionary idea. It isn't. It's controlling, and that makes it downright ugly to me.

 

You are also missing my point that it is the attitude behind these things that bothers me most -- the desire for control.

Edited August 8, 2010 by zengirl

[meerkat stew]

I see movies as escapism. We don't want to actually LIVE that way.

 

I never said so, but rather that movies are a mirror of the desires and fantasies of the audience. Not really a controversial statement at all.

 

Take the movie "Say Anything." That is a charming, classic love film. If anyone actually did the things Cusack does in the movie, they would be creepy and weird and he'd never get the girl.

 

I have several friends who did more obsessive things and got the girl, interestingly of the married people I know, the marriages arising from the "stalkiest" circumstances are some of the happiest and long lasting. This may be because my friends in question let it all hang out, they put it all on the line for their love, took direct, forceful action, and despite doing things "wrong" by the manuals, it worked anyway because they believed in what they were doing and would not be deterred, or it could be coincidence and blind luck. Thankfully, the women in question didn't have them put in jail.

 

And anyone who actually believes such false perceptions as projected in an advertisement --- that the truck has such magical powers --- is someone I regard as an idiot. Really.

 

Of course people don't "believe" the advertising, they don't take it at face value. Similarly, women really don't believe they are being insulted when a guy tells them they talk to much, or their hair color looks "really natural," they aren't easily manipulated, but for some reason, the ads work, for some reason, the teasing and insults work. I don't know why personally, but that's because I am largely unresponsive to any advertising and don't do the teasing/insulting interactions with women.

 

Does the fact that people don't take things at 100% face value change the fact that many people respond to ads and many women respond to being teased or playfully insulted? Men and women both respond to "slap and tickle" Squeeze wrote a song about it. I don't know why this is the case, but it is, and not really a focus of prospective decrying or condemnation. I think your estimation of it being obnoxious because it is about "control" is an overreaction.

 

Why are you insisting I not criticize it when people take seriously obviously fake things?

 

I made a blurb of a post defending some of the PUA culture as being good advice. You disagreed, it's that simple despite the fact we have both spent too much time typing subsequently.

 

The stuff started from a fellow citing PUA crap that was representative of the same drivel I've seen with these techniques. I'm not really going to spend my time analyzing all the PUA in the world to judge its "culture." If an article sparks a person to do true self-analysis and change themselves, I wouldn't judge them for that, as long as they can recognize crap for crap. I do judge anyone who cites obviously manipulative PUA as some sort of revolutionary idea. It isn't. It's controlling, and that makes it downright ugly to me.

 

What I take from this is that you maintain a right to condemn something, regardless of the facts, without truly understanding it. Interesting. I'm done here at least with respect to this derail.

[zengirl]

What I take from this is that you maintain a right to condemn something, regardless of the facts, without truly understanding it. Interesting. I'm done here at least with respect to this derail.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all, and what I take from this is that you are incapable of listening to my actual point, which is about the intentions and desire for control behind PUA culture that upsets me. You've addressed multiple avenues of argument that are strawmen, My point has always been: Lauding something that claims to help you control interactions with another person is disturbing, unhealthy, and ultimately ineffective. And PUA culture does just that. Whether you feel it's at its "heart" or just the advertising trick doesn't interest me. The fact is that it does it, and many men use it with just that hope in mind. The end.

 

You might find this an "overreaction," but my worldview is largely based upon believing that people seek control and self-interest too often and that it causes all of the harm and unhappiness in the world. So. . . it's not an overreaction if you have my beliefs. As I said above to another poster, it really depends on your motivations and core beliefs in this world.

[dispatch3d]

haha whoa wait what....

 

did you just say the book of pook is a good book that any guy could read to get better with women?

 

lol really?

 

You do realize that THAT BOOK IS PUA CULTURE!! I mean it's not written in a sense of - say this to the girl and then say that. It's mostly an innergame book, and there are several inner-game books out there (that aren't the book of pook). Another example of someone mostly into inner game is David Delangolo (however it's spelled). He just does cocky-comedy and then offers ways to fix your innergame/get a better social circle/etc. Basically he teaches how to flirt+how to be cool. That's it.

 

Zengirl you are definitely guilty of judging something you know nothing about. That "The Rules" book I have heard mostly bad things about. I have heard its FULL of TRICKS and QUICK FIXES. It also was critisized as getting girls the wrong kinds of guys. AND IT DOESNT WORK!! I'd like to read it just in case I meet a rules girl, and I actually like her.

 

The stuff I'm pretty sure you're against is mystery-method, and definitely Speed Seduction. Both of them are much more systematic and outer-game based. As in, change your behaviours and the beliefs will follow. Guys doing those would be awkward for at least a year until they get everything nailed down (calibrated to be normal again). Even David D guys likely go wayyyyyy overboard with cocky comedy. It's a natural thing to have happen.

 

And lol obviously the stuff is FULL of marketing.

 

Take this for example.

 

NLP=Neurolingistuic programming. It's a branch of psychology which is used to help mental problems (ie. in psychology, its apparently very very very good at curing phobias), in marketing (like really really in marketing), in hypnosis (NLP is hypnosis), and in Speed Seduction (dating advice). They use marketing techniques/languistic rhetoric to seduce women.

 

and yes a lot of people think of NLP as an evil one they wouldn't want to do. It is, however, innncredibly useful information.

[Dblock10]

Where do I start? Well, today I decided to go to Barnes & Noble to do some studying. Crowded as usual, I find a table upstairs to my surprise. As I'm drinking my coffee and browsing the web, out of the corner of my eye I notice the most beautiful girl. Her face, somewhat luminous, had an alluring bronze tone to it. Her eyes were a piercingly sharp shade of brown. Eyebrows arched perfectly to help compliment her already seductive look. Voluptuous lips coupled with her gorgeous smile sent me to ecstasy, I just had to have more. Intrigued and definitely aware of her presence, I act as if I don't notice her. "Don't look at her, you can't let her get the upper hand, make her come to you." All of a sudden she gets close, my heart pulses faster and my mind begins to race. She walks over and asks, "Is this seat taken?" I cordially reply, "Oh, no." She sits down and I proceed to browse the web, we don't talk. After about ten or so minutes I open my book and begin to do my homework. I have my head phones on at this point and I'm not giving her much attention. She suddenly whips out her iPod and continues to do her work. We catch each other staring, but it's nothing drastic. Body language doesn't say much. She shifted forward a few times and put her hair up and then let it down if that makes a difference.

 

After an hour or so of not having said one word to each other, I take my headphones off and ask her, "Excuse me, are you going to be here long? 'Yes', she replies. Do you mind watching my stuff while I go grab a drink? 'Sure.' I stand up and say, "Sorry, I never introduced myself, what's your name? 'Janet' she says as she smiles. I reach out my hand and introduce myself. She seemed fairly shy, apprehensive it seemed. I go downstairs, grab my drink and come back and take a seat. I say to her, "Thanks for watching my stuff. 'Sure.' She doesn't make eye contact with me. We sat together literally for about two hours and didn't say much. She seemed focused on her studying and I didn't want to interrupt. The majority of the time both of us had our headphones on, but as soon as I took mine off, hers were off a minute later.

 

Time went by, and I noticed my queen was starting to pack. Frustrated that I haven't acted on my emotions, I continue to take notes and ignore her. Oxymoron, yes I know. It seems as if it took her forever to pack. She gets up, I roll my eyes up trying not to lift my head, and she walks away without look back.

 

Sad that I had lost such a great opportunity to really get to know someone, I begin to beat myself down: "You never had a chance with her, what were you thinking. You're ugly, have no game and you're socially awkward." I go home only to find myself on 'LoveShack' complaining about an opportunity gone wry. As I reminisce on what could have been, I feel disappointed.

 

The mystery of emotion never ceases to amaze me. Love, in itself is something that will never fade away, no matter who falls in and out of it. The concept changes, but remains a characteristic of life. Time may change many things but feelings and emotions are a part of that which remains constant. Hopefully I can express these feelings someday.

 

to be honest she sounded polite, you should have been the man and just got stuck in man!

 

or like helped her pack and then try and get her number or meet up with her again.

 

perhaps all is not lost? you could try and catch her at the same place revising? then you can work your stuff.

 

also she is not your queen. dont make her out to be this special item. once you do that you wont be at ease, you will worry you may scare her off..

[zengirl]

haha whoa wait what....

 

did you just say the book of pook is a good book that any guy could read to get better with women?

 

lol really?

 

You do realize that THAT BOOK IS PUA CULTURE!! I mean it's not written in a sense of - say this to the girl and then say that. It's mostly an innergame book, and there are several inner-game books out there (that aren't the book of pook). Another example of someone mostly into inner game is David Delangolo (however it's spelled). He just does cocky-comedy and then offers ways to fix your innergame/get a better social circle/etc. Basically he teaches how to flirt+how to be cool. That's it.

 

Zengirl you are definitely guilty of judging something you know nothing about. That "The Rules" book I have heard mostly bad things about. I have heard its FULL of TRICKS and QUICK FIXES. It also was critisized as getting girls the wrong kinds of guys. AND IT DOESNT WORK!! I'd like to read it just in case I meet a rules girl, and I actually like her.

 

The stuff I'm pretty sure you're against is mystery-method, and definitely Speed Seduction. Both of them are much more systematic and outer-game based. As in, change your behaviours and the beliefs will follow. Guys doing those would be awkward for at least a year until they get everything nailed down (calibrated to be normal again). Even David D guys likely go wayyyyyy overboard with cocky comedy. It's a natural thing to have happen.

 

And lol obviously the stuff is FULL of marketing.

 

Take this for example.

 

NLP=Neurolingistuic programming. It's a branch of psychology which is used to help mental problems (ie. in psychology, its apparently very very very good at curing phobias), in marketing (like really really in marketing), in hypnosis (NLP is hypnosis), and in Speed Seduction (dating advice). They use marketing techniques/languistic rhetoric to seduce women.

 

and yes a lot of people think of NLP as an evil one they wouldn't want to do. It is, however, innncredibly useful information.

 

You are missing my point. How are these books marketed? Why are they read? You yourself have said that you seek control in situations. I'm not going to get into a long deconstruction of this because y'all persist in missing the point: These books encourage people to seek control of situations and other people. That is unhealthy. End-stop.

 

Changing yourself and activating real transformation, while letting go of the illusion of control, and accepting what is. . . that is fine. I'm not saying, "Everyone, stay stuck where you are." I'm saying, "Really change. Change yourself and don't ever try to control other people."

 

The Rules are stupid. But so is PUA. Both attract people who mostly are upset by the lack of control they feel over their own lives, and they substitute the advice for actual transformation. Real transformation can be sparked by anything, sure, so it's not impossible for it to spark real transformation---a tree or a film or a song or a book or a sentence or a case of the flu can spark real transformation given the right set of circumstances; anything can. But the attitude with which these things are made and read (this need for control) is unhealthy.

[meerkat stew]

NLP=Neurolingistuic programming. It's a branch of psychology which is used to help mental problems (ie. in psychology, its apparently very very very good at curing phobias), in marketing (like really really in marketing), in hypnosis (NLP is hypnosis), and in Speed Seduction (dating advice). They use marketing techniques/languistic rhetoric to seduce women.

 

and yes a lot of people think of NLP as an evil one they wouldn't want to do. It is, however, innncredibly useful information.

 

I was taught NLP techniques as part of a stockbroker training program (a very expensive elite one on a huge corporate campus in Princeton, not a cheezy dude in a tacky suit) first in 1987. It's not all that mysterious, certainly not "hypnosis," but rather centers on building rapport rapidly with an audience by matching verbal and physical cues. At it's core, it's really just Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" modernized.

 

The point is that just because the focus of something is persuasion or influence does not equate to some Svengali level of control. It seems detractors of this stuff don't mind it when the same techniques are innocuously placed in a book on getting people to like you or how to sell cars or insurance, but if it's put in a book on getting women to like you, "batten down the hatches, raise the artillery, someone's trying to -control- women!" Building familiarity, rapport and influence with someone is not the same thing as -controlling- them.