Ladies, be assured, this forum does NOT represent the majority of men

[sid3]

 

"Artist" An incredibly talented person

 

Most artists starve, their 'talent' is usually not incredible. Statistically few are actually incredibly talented.

 

maybe that falls under "PUA", I don't even care....

 

Its obvious you do....why?.....

 

what I am saying to all the girls reading all that is that is not a god cross section of single guys out there. That is just the ones on this sight, I am not like that, make a conscious choice to NOT assosiate with that type, and would rather not be pigeon holed into that group.

 

This is interesting. Pigeon holed? Really? Are you looking for dates here?

 

I'm not gonna change MY perspective on what *I* view here: I don't feel this is an accurate cross section of single guys out there since the nicer ones are not posting.

 

You shouldn't change your perspective on what you veiw. Just realise your perception of who is a nice guy isn't everyone else's reality.

 

The women deserve to know this.

 

On average there are about 325 people veiwing this forum. I'll venture to say two thirds are women. So in the U.S alone there is literally a million men out there for every male poster on LS. Somehow you equate such a small sampling of men as enough to warrant this thread. Really, women deserve to know this? I'm guessimg women are more than smart enough to reach that conclusion.

Edited April 17, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[iris219]

Agreed. As a single man, I take exception to being boxed into such rigid and unflattering categories.

 

No one's putting you, specifically, into any category. However, if you reach your late 30's and repeatedly manage to sabotage every relationship you could have had because of something like drug/alcohol addiction, refusal to treat major depression, or complete selfish, uncaring, or narcissistic behavior, you're going in the box!

[fortyninethousand322]

Would it help if I specified that these are categories of people who are single for significant lengths of time?

 

I think we're touched on this idea in the forum before, but there is a prevailing thought that if you are not single by choice, then there IS something wrong with you. If someone has been single for several months or longer, and can't find anyone to date, isn't our immediate impression that they are screwing up somehow?

 

I suppose you mean perpetually involuntarily single? I suppose that makes much more sense. But, then again those people are so rare (especially at our age) as to not even be a big deal to you.

 

If you were in your 30s I'd be more convinced that there were hardly any decent single people (of both genders).

[threebyfate]

This site is the "I got a booboo site". People hurting come here to get help or understanding. Most move on in life.

[zengirl]

Some of the younger (and older too, come to think of it) guys I know have so little game that PUA stuff is actually a step in the right direction. If they get out there and start approaching women, most of them will amend their approach over time to something that they're comfortable with and works for them.

 

No big deal.

 

This is kind of how I feel, except I see guys (here - never encountered it IRL) sometimes get caught up reading PUA stuff and not even doing anything because they can't figure out how to do it "right" and it just feeds their endless paralysis. That strikes me as unhelpful. If it helps someone get perspective and move forward with some actual growth, I don't really mind. I find that an unlikely outcome of "using" PUA advice, but if someone has literally NO game, I'm sympathetic to them trying it.

 

However, like Mme. Chaucer, I don't consider all male advice books/columns to be PUA and I think things like The Rules or the "Bitch" series for women or the true PUA culture stuff (Doc Love's The System crap is the first thing that comes to mind, but that's because it's so much like The Rules -- I'd actually love to see a System Guy and a Rules Girl face off; it'd be like a passive-aggressive implosion fest) like using negs and so forth are manipulative crap that both makes you a dirtbag and makes it more likely you'll meet dirtbags (this is for men OR women who's primary means of attracting the opposite -- or, frankly, same -- sex is manipulative in nature). That doesn't mean everyone who reads that stuff (the male PUA or corresponding manipulative texts for women) really uses it.

 

Anyway, the OP can feel free to disparage and dislike PUA if he dislikes it. Personally, I was never interested in dating a guy who used a whiff of that crap, and I can smell it coming a mile away. I can't stand anyone who uses ANY kind of manipulation. I immediately cut them off.

 

Lumping all male relationship advice under "PUA" is just as disingenuous as lumping all female relationship advice under "Gold-dig 101" would be.

 

Agree entirely, but YOU seem to be the only one lumping all male advice under PUA. You're the one who said it was a catch-all. That's never what I'd consider it to be, nor what MC said, nor what it seems the OP meant. He didn't seem to disparage all male relationship advice at all. He clearly meant a very specific set of texts, tricks, and philosophies. You're making it needlessly broad and then saying. . . that's needlessly broad. Weird.

 

I don't see a problem.

 

PUA stuff at best only has dubious effectiveness anyway. I think, since I'm not a woman, I have to guess here, that as long as men do not harass or go into insult mode once they are turned down, who cares what "strategy" they use?

 

Sure. I've find the guys who actually use PUA type stuff IRL are often the least likely to go away nicely (my experience only, of course), but any man who goes away when I say "No" is, and has always been, entirely tolerable. In general, I do find the desire to manipulate others to get what you want -- which is what the texts I consider "PUA" (not all male relationship advice material!) to be doing and what some texts for women also do -- to be the most odious part of human nature and one I seek to avoid.

 

But PUA crap is easy enough to avoid. No skin off my back.

 

PUA at it's worst is a money syphoning scheme, and it's to the detriment of men's wallet. Men should be the one to complain about it if anything.

 

I actually thought of that. Of course, I don't know if it ever made anyone happy, but it seems unlikely to make anyone happy -- as much as The Rules are. Plenty of male relationship advice that actually improves interpersonal skills, helps men build boundaries, and assert themselves long-term is valuable, just as much for women is, despite the crap out there. However, the crap out there doesn't make me angry --- that doesn't mean I'm not still going to see it as crap. It doesn't seem, to me, like the OP is really upset about PUA. He just doesn't see it in life, doesn't like it, and thinks it's weird there's so much here (my view of his post--I could be wrong). I think he was very wrong in generalizing LS as a place that's filled with that much PUA, though. I see a bit of it here, but not tons. Most of the regular male posters don't seem to be using PUA, from what they post.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Originally Posted by dasein

You admit that you don't go to bars, yet feel free to opine on what happens there?

 

Ha! I have to laugh at this!

 

You admit that you are not a woman, but you most certainly feel free to opine on what women think and feel like. Boy, oh, boy do you ever!

[lino]

To be honest, the only thing going through my mind when I joined this forum is to find solace from my most recent breakup and to give solace to those who truly needs it the most.

 

That's why I originally registered here too.

 

I noticed that the quality of the regular members nose dived sharply about 2 years after I registered.

This isn't a very good place to turn to for a bloke struggling with girl problems... Way too much nastiness.

 

Never really looked at the pick up artist stuff. Seems like a load of sh*t to me personally.

[Els]

The problem is wwwjd's post comes off as if he's trying to suck up to women. And he was suggesting one sided views that I find strange.

 

Sure, he's entitled to his opinions. Well, I am to mine too.

 

Personally, being the knight in shining armor, even with the absolutely fantastic and irresistible perk of getting laid by Elswyth, is I think a very bad approach, and an approach that I will not use. Yes, I am saddened that Elswyth will never lay me, but it's a trade off I'm willing to make. Not to diminish the power of Elswyth's lay, quite the opposite, it only serves to underline how bad of an idea the knight in shining armor approach is.

 

ROFL, that cracked me up. :laugh:

 

I really think each guy is entitled to their individual opinion. So you are, and the OP is as well. The only thing that bugs me here are the people insulting the OP for stating his.

[mixwell]

For those of you ladies reading all these threads about DAY GAMING, pick up artists, how much sex guys want and how fast...

 

PLEASE BE ASSURED this does not represent a accurate cross section of what is out there for you to meet.

 

This forum seems to draw a particular segment of individuals - first up, people that know how to use google to find "How to pickup women" websites, and etc.

 

Just because a certain number of people go online to a site like this to post and seek info about dating and relationships does not automatically mean they are an accurately balanced typical cross section of the guys that are out there. I have seen a decent slice of varied individuals here that keeps the perspectives and opinions diverse and interesting, but the net ALSO forces people into a party where they normally wouldn't be.

 

For example, I would not be caught in the same room with any sort of guy bragging about how he expects kisses on first dates, or how he banged 4 different women last week. Not saying that is wrong for them, just that *I* would not be found in the same room with them discussing, well, anything. So, I would guess, there is a large majority of guys out there that are NOT posting on this particular website, who's perspective and opinions are NOT heard. Guys who don't use terms like "Pump and Dump" or guys who idea of meeting women doesn't have to revolve around alcohol.

 

Make of this what you will, I just wanted to post up, there are much more wider versions of males that I have personally seen than the type on THIS particular website.

 

If you choose to only keep looking in clubs and bars, you choose to keep finding this same type of guy. And nothing changes if you change nothing.

 

Alternate perspectives exist outside this tiny biosphere of a forum.

 

Haha all this coming from someone who posted a thread on how they get all decked out on chance encounter with some random girl walking down the street ? What are you trying to prove, that you're not like other guys trying to be a player or something ? You should worry more about yourself and stop hating on other men who spit whatever game they have.

 

What works for some doesn't work for all. Let social interactions with individuals prove itself, we don't need you to tell women "not all guys are like X" go out and get yours and let the other guys do what they do to get theirs.. I do think the whole PUA scheme is just cheesy and fake but do what YOU gotta do to get yours.. Who cares what majority of other guys are doing..

Edited April 17, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[RedRobin]

I don't care if he's trying to suck up or not.

 

Sometimes it is nice to be reminded that the small handful of mean-spirited 'men' here are not the norm... and have the ways they are not the norm spelled out and articulated well by another man...

 

Because I sincerely believe that it is other MEN that need to be schooling men on how to be decent, caring, and respectful. Some of you PUA'ers call that wussy or emasculated. Whatever.

 

On the OP's part... We will see how much of it is real and how much of it is sucking up. I've never faulted anyone for taking sincere, honest actions to improve themselves or make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex in ways that are not manipulative or mean-spirited.

 

Perhaps the PUA'ers can take a page from his book and stop the 'hatin'.

[Radu]

All ppl should stop the hatin', doesn't matter what gender you are.

[sid3]

The air is so thick with desperation I can almost taste it. There are not that many PUAs on LS, maybe a half dozen at the most.

Edited April 17, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[sid3]

I think men SHOULD be given pats on the head (both of them, ha ha) for behaving and believing in dating with decency.

 

I don't know the OP well enough to know if this is demonstrated with any consistency in real life.

 

But if he was looking for some reassurance here... I have no problems saying YEA! I LOVE THAT! KEEP DOING MORE OF THAT!

 

Because, like I always say... it's not enough to say what you don't like...

 

one needs to tell people what they DO like. So, sorry to the PUA'ers who want some other kinda validation.... or think positive strokes from women is putting you on a path to wussy-ville. lol

 

Who are these PUAs that you keep referring too? They must be posting in code, cause I just don't see it.

[Kamille]

The problem is wwwjd's post comes off as if he's trying to suck up to women. And he was suggesting one sided views that I find strange.

 

 

How is what he's suggesting one-sided? He's the one saying there's different kinds of men out there. He's also apparently not opposed to talking and listening to women. The opposite (assuming there's only one way to be a man and refusing to consider women's opinion as valid) would be one sided.

[zengirl]

The problem is wwwjd's post comes off as if he's trying to suck up to women. And he was suggesting one sided views that I find strange.

 

I can see that view. Based on what I've seen of wwwjd's posts in other threads, I'm going to go with the idea that these are his real opinions. He seems to be extremely conservative in his dating views, in general. He is one of the posters who has recently stated he basically always does "friends first" dating and doesn't want any element of sexuality in early dates (from what I've gathered) so I can see a lot of PUA culture -- which is aimed at escalating on those early dates -- seeming strange to him. The OP here echoes that where it mentioned guys 'expecting' kisses on date #1 and banging 4 girls last week, etc. From a poster who clearly has conservative views to the point of being old-timey, I'm assuming it's relatively sincere.

 

I don't think he was expecting a 'pat on the head' so much as trying to cut through some of the cynicism we see here and express what he sees as a minority opinion. That's not saying I think it was necessarily well-done (I don't think it was -- I think it was needlessly combative in the manner it was expressed); also, not saying I can know that for sure, but it's just my interpretation of what I think the OP was going for.

 

Personally, I never wanted a knight in shining armor or a guy who uses PUA. I wanted a guy whose ego wasn't tied in with his dating style, and I'd say both of those are highly ego-driven approaches. I just wanted a guy who was himself -- and himself can be a guy who cares and wants to impress me (I think sometimes people get the idea that caring and having ego are the same thing --- not at all, IMO), but not for the ego boost or the validation, only if he thinks I'm worth keeping around.

 

I don't believe in the PUA stuff because I just don't think people who are attracted to manipulation are worth it.

 

Agree.

[wwwjd]

Based on what I've seen of wwwjd's posts in other threads, I'm going to go with the idea that these are his real opinions. He seems to be extremely conservative in his dating views, in general. He is one of the posters who has recently stated he basically always does "friends first" dating and doesn't want any element of sexuality in early dates (from what I've gathered) so I can see a lot of PUA culture -- which is aimed at escalating on those early dates -- seeming strange to him. The OP here echoes that where it mentioned guys 'expecting' kisses on date #1 and banging 4 girls last week, etc. From a poster who clearly has conservative views to the point of being old-timey, I'm assuming it's relatively sincere.

 

I don't think he was expecting a 'pat on the head' so much as trying to cut through some of the cynicism we see here and express what he sees as a minority opinion. That's not saying I think it was necessarily well-done (I don't think it was -- I think it was needlessly combative in the manner it was expressed); also, not saying I can know that for sure, but it's just my interpretation of what I think the OP was going for.

 

And that is exactly right. Thanks for understanding. You so completely nailed it.

 

And I tend to come out swinging when backed alone into an internet corner by many others at once. I do apologize for my previous actions that were deemed lame or harsh.

 

You skeptics, feel free to dig through all my old posts and find ONE TIME where I was trolling for dates. Or trying to be a White Knight.

Well, I AM a White Knight and we don't post up very often here from what >>I<< have witnessed. So, I am changing that right now.

 

But I'm STILL not trying to get dates here. I prefer real life, doing the manly pursuit thing (NOT to be confused with PUA for those that apparently don't know the difference). OLD has been proven to work great, nothing wrong with that, I'm just not utilizing it.

[dasein]

Originally Posted by dasein

 

 

Ha! I have to laugh at this!

 

You admit that you are not a woman, but you most certainly feel free to opine on what women think and feel like. Boy, oh, boy do you ever!

 

My comments with respect to what women "think and feel" are limited to what either they tell me they think and feel IRL or reasonable conclusions drawn from what they post here. Almost all my posts re: women generally are with respect to their behavior, and the thoughts and feelings reasonably associated with, expressed or implied by such behavior.

 

I don't feel any need to laugh at your mistake, puerile though it is.

[dasein]

However, like Mme. Chaucer, I don't consider all male advice books/columns to be PUA and I think things like The Rules or the "Bitch" series for women or the true PUA culture stuff (Doc Love's The System crap is the first thing that comes to mind, but that's because it's so much like The Rules -- I'd actually love to see a System Guy and a Rules Girl face off; it'd be like a passive-aggressive implosion fest) like using negs and so forth are manipulative crap that both makes you a dirtbag and makes it more likely you'll meet dirtbags (this is for men OR women who's primary means of attracting the opposite -- or, frankly, same -- sex is manipulative in nature). That doesn't mean everyone who reads that stuff (the male PUA or corresponding manipulative texts for women) really uses it.

 

Just like chaucer, you reveal otherwise, and that you haven't really looked into Doc Love, but are ready to lump that and negging in one big "bad" category, "PUA." You and others can say you don't lump all male advice under PUA, yet somehow none of the male flirtation techniques ever seem to be OK, all turn out to exploit or objectify women in some way. But that's what flirting is, a form of manipulation.

 

For example, the Rules counsels out and out rudeness to men, never returning calls, playing hard to get, etc. Doc Love's system does nothing of the sort, and counsels complete honesty, courtesy, and respect. It does set time limits about calling women, and whether that's wise or not is debatable, but it isn't inherently rude or dishonest in the same way the Rules is. But what's plain is that you really haven't read much Doc Love. I have and The Rules as well.

 

Turning to "negging," this is basically encouraging men to have a more healthy attitude about dealings with strange women. People tease each other constantly, their family, their friends, even people they just met. I do it every day and people I talk to do it to me. Now the average guy gets the bad advice that in order to approach a strange woman successfully, he must act "abnormal" in being too nice, too supplicating, complimentary. This kind of abnormal conversation pattern is alternatively fake, boring and always unattractive. The point of the "negging" advice is not to walk up to a woman, insult them, and their panties fall off, but to engage in normal, familiar conversation patterns with women one is approaching, including teasing. It's simply not that sinister and demeaning.

 

In fact, all of the PUA techniques are simply social tools, nothing more. Tools that may allow inherently uncomfortable, awkward men to "fake it til they make it" in being able to approach and talk to women. Most of the men who are the customers of this stuff are literally fearfully paralyzed when the prospect of talking to a strange woman arises. If someone told them "hey walk up and tease her just like you do your sister," and that raised the guy's comfort level, maybe set off the lightbulb "hey she's just a human being with faults and foibles just like me," why would that be such a terrible, dark thing?

[sid3]

 

I do apologize for my previous actions that were deemed lame or harsh.

 

No need to apologize, you have the right to be as lame as you'd like. I'd say you're doing a great job BTW!

 

But I'm STILL not trying to get dates here.

 

Who are you trying to convince, its obvious you are starving for female attention. I'd suggest utilizing OLD over flaming in a dating forum. A far more productive use of your time. PUAs may be cheesy, I do give them some credit for having the balls to at least get out there and try. Rooting around the internet for validation from female LS members, not so much. Go talk to some girls today, you sound a bit lonely.

[Kamille]

It's a sad day when a thread that was set up to directly insult a big chunk of members of a forum by a forum noob is mindlessly "attagirled" by all the wannabe Springer lemmings here.

 

Oh, is that what this thread was about? And here I thought it was to give a voice to the more balanced men of LS and reassure straight women that not all men thought women's jobs were to be skinny and to put out on the first date. No. No, clearly, it was meant to offend an elite group of posters, the group who like to spend their time insulting and offending women on LS.

 

Why does it bother this minority so much that their orthodox views are being discussed as not representative of all?

[verhrzn]

Just like chaucer, you reveal otherwise, and that you haven't really looked into Doc Love, but are ready to lump that and negging in one big "bad" category, "PUA." You and others can say you don't lump all male advice under PUA, yet somehow none of the male flirtation techniques ever seem to be OK, all turn out to exploit or objectify women in some way. But that's what flirting is, a form of manipulation.

 

For example, the Rules counsels out and out rudeness to men, never returning calls, playing hard to get, etc. Doc Love's system does nothing of the sort, and counsels complete honesty, courtesy, and respect. It does set time limits about calling women, and whether that's wise or not is debatable, but it isn't inherently rude or dishonest in the same way the Rules is. But what's plain is that you really haven't read much Doc Love. I have and The Rules as well.

 

Turning to "negging," this is basically encouraging men to have a more healthy attitude about dealings with strange women. People tease each other constantly, their family, their friends, even people they just met. I do it every day and people I talk to do it to me. Now the average guy gets the bad advice that in order to approach a strange woman successfully, he must act "abnormal" in being too nice, too supplicating, complimentary. This kind of abnormal conversation pattern is alternatively fake, boring and always unattractive. The point of the "negging" advice is not to walk up to a woman, insult them, and their panties fall off, but to engage in normal, familiar conversation patterns with women one is approaching, including teasing. It's simply not that sinister and demeaning.

 

In fact, all of the PUA techniques are simply social tools, nothing more. Tools that may allow inherently uncomfortable, awkward men to "fake it til they make it" in being able to approach and talk to women. Most of the men who are the customers of this stuff are literally fearfully paralyzed when the prospect of talking to a strange woman arises. If someone told them "hey walk up and tease her just like you do your sister," and that raised the guy's comfort level, maybe set off the lightbulb "hey she's just a human being with faults and foibles just like me," why would that be such a terrible, dark thing?

 

I agree that there is some difference between PUA and Doc Love. I've read a lot of his columns, and I have some admiration for what he has to say. He counsels common sense (dump your wonderful-but-average-looking girlfriend, because she deserves better and you're never gonna be happy until you realize what you lost), respect (she called you and you let it go to voice mail?! that is not how a gentleman behaves), and straight forwardness (ask her out already!)

 

However, he does have SOME PUA coloring. His System is still based on some form of social manipulation, in that he suggests constantly evaluating the woman's "interest level", 1) making sure your interest level is not obviously higher and 2) exhibiting certain behaviors so the woman's interest level doesn't dip.

 

Again, of most of the advice I read for guys, Doc Love is the least offensive, and the least PUA-like. But the idea of social manipulation is what offends the ladies, and he is not entirely guilt-free of that.

 

If I had to recommend any advice column geared towards guys, I always go to Dr. Nerdlove. All of the common sense of Doc Love with none of the dancing-around-the-idea-of-manipulation coloring of PUA.

[zengirl]

Just like chaucer, you reveal otherwise, and that you haven't really looked into Doc Love, but are ready to lump that and negging in one big "bad" category, "PUA." You and others can say you don't lump all male advice under PUA, yet somehow none of the male flirtation techniques ever seem to be OK, all turn out to exploit or objectify women in some way. But that's what flirting is, a form of manipulation.

 

I don't believe flirting IS a form of manipulation. I believe some people -- male or female -- use it that way, and I dislike that. A really great book for male advice I can recommend is The Tao of Dating for Men (there's one for women as well, but it's different). Most of the best relationship advice books out there do have some lessons that are applicable across-genders but can be tailored for specific gender situations. Seeing someone as either a target or an enemy to conquer is entirely gross. Doc Love's System -- like The Rules for women -- is gross. This is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. That doesn't mean there's no good relationship advice out there for men. There's tons of relationship advice that doesn't include the techniques or topics I mentioned!

 

Also, nowhere did I say "exploit or objectify women" in my criticism. I leveled my criticism at manipulating others in general.

 

For example, the Rules counsels out and out rudeness to men, never returning calls, playing hard to get, etc. Doc Love's system does nothing of the sort, and counsels complete honesty, courtesy, and respect. It does set time limits about calling women, and whether that's wise or not is debatable, but it isn't inherently rude or dishonest in the same way the Rules is. But what's plain is that you really haven't read much Doc Love. I have and The Rules as well.

 

I've read actually ALL of Doc Love up to a certain date (years ago, sure), as I worked with the marketing side of Ask Men for a time. I've read his The System book. If you actually follow it, it's about being dominant and controlling in the relationship, which is achieved through manipulation. Even comes down to counting times you say ILY and not saying it first, etc. It's really very similar to The Rules.

 

Turning to "negging," this is basically encouraging men to have a more healthy attitude about dealings with strange women.

 

Not really. Giving a negative compliment to build rapport OR find insecurities is stupid. I'm against putting people on pedestals. But calling "negging" the same as teasing you'd do with friends is inherently changing what the advice SAYS. We also do naturally get to treat people we know differently than those we don't -- that's life. I do not feel a man needs to compliment at all, let along neg a girl, to approach her. I feel the best approaches are free of compliments, criticisms, teasing, etc. They are simply straightforward and assertive.

 

In fact, all of the PUA techniques are simply social tools, nothing more.

 

Depends on what you see as a social tool. I do not necessarily disagree that they're social tools, but I think they're base, crude, manipulative tools, whereas actual personal growth can be gained and we can use better tools if we want to be better people or crass tools if we want to be crass people, etc. I dislike anything or anyone associated with PUA, but I don't disagree with it's existence. The same thing with books like the "Rules" or "Bitches" books --- those are just tools as well, but they're manipulative tools that are wrong to use, per my value system.

 

Clearly, you and I don't share the same value system. That's fine. In real life, I'd never speak with you outside of situations where I was forced to by common courtesy or professionalism. I think that's what the OP is getting at. He hasn't heard a lot of this stuff before and feels it's not reflective of real life because he wouldn't associate with such people. And that's absolutely fine. It's also fine for you to feel you wouldn't associate with people like him or me or whomever.

 

Tools that may allow inherently uncomfortable, awkward men to "fake it til they make it" in being able to approach and talk to women.

 

Right, exactly what the "Bitches" book can do for women who inherently believe they should please men and be doormats. But still not the proper tact to take, IMO, and swinging to far in the opposite direction with manipulative and downright childish mindsets embedded in the advice.

 

If someone told them "hey walk up and tease her just like you do your sister," and that raised the guy's comfort level, maybe set off the lightbulb "hey she's just a human being with faults and foibles just like me," why would that be such a terrible, dark thing?

 

Yeah, that's not what the tone or texts of those PUA materials actually says. It's "do this" to "get that" and that transactional nature causes a lot of problems in most interpersonal relationships, IMO.

[zengirl]

Fwiw, I meant to include this in my reply to daesin, but: I actually don't think every Doc Love article is bad. I was referring mainly to his System in general and his attitude in the columns. Some of his advice, given from a non-System perspective, would still hold up. I think his general attitude towards dating (as though it's about acquisition) is gross, though. True of many female authors as well. Yes, as V says, it's the social manipulation his System attempts that offends me. Social manipulation towards men or women offends me, though.

[dasein]

How is what he's suggesting one-sided? He's the one saying there's different kinds of men out there. He's also apparently not opposed to talking and listening to women. The opposite (assuming there's only one way to be a man and refusing to consider women's opinion as valid) would be one sided.

 

That's an interesting, if totally dishonest way to spin OP, which may be accurately paraphrased as "Most male posters on LS suck, I wouldn't be in the same room with them, and there are better 'out there' for all you LS ladies."

 

The equivalent thread directly insulting female members of LS? LOL, can only imagine the endless tsunami of outrage that would result. This thread is a testament to the good nature of most LS male posters.

[wwwjd]

Am I supposed to make fun of Texas now or something? I'm above that, take it elsewhere. There are wonderful women in Iowa, thanks for asking.

 

I'm glad you put Male in your description though. More of us should do that.