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

[serial muse]

Never mind. Staying out of it.

[Kamille]

 

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

 

Just follow your own posts D, or FGM or PD, or whoever elses who only start threads to insult, criticize and analyze women. Or the posters who turn any thread by a women into an "example" of how women are X, Y and Z. You're pretty good at throwing mud at the women of LS. And we respond with as much outrage, humor and tolerance as your posse did here.

[verhrzn]

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.

 

Yep, that's exactly my perspective too. If pressed by male friends, I'd suggest they read his articles but not his book. You summed up my feelings perfectly in your last post.

 

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.

 

Gee, I wonder what that would be like...

[dasein]

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?

 

Reality? Thoroughly disconnected from. Keep trying to wag the dog though.

 

Had OP wanted to assure women (for whatever nebulous reason women need assuring of such) that there are indeed men "out there" who don't do certain things he finds objectionable, he could have easily 1) cited the specific behaviors he was talking about and 2) proceeded with his reassurances, without 3) insulting the entire male membership of this forum .

 

Nothing "elitist" about finding that annoying, try again.

[Kamille]

3) insulting the entire male membership of this forum .

 

 

He clearly did not insult the entire male membership of this forum.

 

Interesting that you resort back to generalizations to defend your point of view.

[wwwjd]

I guess if I had insulted ALL the men on LS, than my OP was true. hahahahahaha

[zengirl]

3) insulting the entire male membership of this forum .

 

As Kamille said, he clearly did not do this. Also, last week, you were very hung up on defending an OP that insulted women and British people wholesale and said that no one should ever take such insults personally unless they were irrational. So. . . I'm going with basically, what johan said in that thread, your rules for what you "may do" and what others who have a different POV "may do" never align.

[sid3]

He clearly did not insult the entire male membership of this forum.

 

I doubt he insulted even a handful. The combative manner in his "I'm better then'" thread is the reason he is getting flamed. Insulting, no.....not even a little.

[thatone]

I don't recall ever actually picking on the "PUA", but if the shoe fits, I guess it is one in the same as what I mentioned in my first post: 3 date sex, pump and dump etc etc etc.

 

But if I am attracted and start to get to know a girl slowly, how would that be exactly the same as "PUA" since it, apparently, is all the same.

 

Let's break this down quickly:

 

"Pick up" according to Urban Dictionary (because MW doesn't cover it):

To meet someone, usually at a bar or party, and persuade them to leave with you in order to have sex. Used for in-person encounters, as opposed to hookup, which can also be used for internet meetings for sex.

 

That is the commoners definition of PICK UP. I didn't make that up, that is a generally recognized definition. The MW one was like getting someone into your vehicle, but the UNabridged is not on line.

 

So, to not mince words, I go by the world's general definition of things so to be understood by teh internets.

 

"Artist" An incredibly talented person who dedicates the time and hard work to.... "pick ups?" This person has dedicated years of work to mastering his craft, and deserve as much credit as any other professional in a field. They generally have a higher level of creativity and imagination.

 

So, if MY method of meeting someone, through casual associative freindship, common interests, slow growth, into a loving long term spiritual/emotional/mental and yes, even physical relationship, is ANYTHING like being a "PICK UP" "ARTIST", I'm missing something here.

 

ONe of the posts above even said something like, "If she's not interested, move on to the next one." What? Move on the the next one? For what? What are they after at a bar HITTING on women? Doubt it is long term love and dedication to one love for the rest of their life. At a bar? REALLY?

 

So, with all the threads about 3 date sex timing, human personal skills manipulations tips and tricks, and all that, maybe that falls under "PUA", I don't even care....

 

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.

 

If some one is like that and felt offended because *I* am not into that, that is something that individual needs to deal with within themselves. I don't recall ever insulting anyone about it. I do recall saying something like ,"That is fine for them", and also that if someone is stupid enough to not know why it doesn't work out after bed hoping first, well, that IS stupid and I am calling it like it is. NOT KNOWING why a bad choice is messing things up, REPEATEDLY, is stupid. Time to reassess. Unless they are too stupid to reassess.

 

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.

 

The women deserve to know this.

 

dude, let me clue you in on a little secret...

 

women who fall for lame stuff like you're talking with will fall for ANYTHING. they need male attention and don't care what form it comes in. they deal with all of their other failures by wrapping their whole life up in their boyfriend.

 

men who fall head over heels for every woman who gives them the time of day are no different.

 

women aren't all delicate flowers that need your protection. by and large their brains are the same size as mine and yours.

[dasein]

But the idea of social manipulation is what offends the ladies, and he is not entirely guilt-free of that.

 

It sounds like you are categorizing trying to gauge a woman's interest level as a form of social manipulation? How so?

 

Moreover, is every attempt to get someone to like us the equivalent of "social manipulation?"

 

Finally, IMO, there are unacceptable forms of social manipulation. These include lying to get someone to do something, threatening someone to get what one wants, playing on known weaknesses in someone to get what one wants. I don't see much if any of the PUA stuff falling into any of these bad categories. Have never read PUA stuff suggesting "lie to women," that would be a real short book that wouldn't sell well. Haven't seen threats or playing on weaknesses (unless it's a weakness to mumbo jumbo lots of women display, tarot, fotunetelling, crystals, etc., but that could backfire easily) either.

 

Is flirting "social manipulation?" Is paying someone a compliment? At what level of sincerity do we move from the land of "acceptable courtesy and flirtation" to "social manipulation?"

[sid3]

I agree he was combative (I wouldn't say "better than" necessarily, but I get what you're saying), but not at all insulting, certainly not personally insulting.

 

Actually, his comment in his Op when he claims, " since the nicer ones are not posting"

Sums it up quite well IMO.

 

I didn't find that insulting, just a bit gay.

[Woggle]

I am no PUA either but I don't like men who feel the need to somehow apologize for the rest of the gender. You can be a decent guy without throwing your own gender under the bus.

[wwwjd]

wait! Am I gay or seeking women's approval here?? I'm confused. Can I be both?

 

Actually, the thread is weeding things out since the NICER ones that ARE posting aren't offended by that at all hahahahaha It's like an Inception

[zengirl]

Moreover, is every attempt to get someone to like us the equivalent of "social manipulation?"

 

No. Acting a specific way that is not indicative of any facet of who you are JUST to get someone to like you is, though (i.e. only saying or doing something to get someone to like you).

 

Is flirting "social manipulation?" Is paying someone a compliment? At what level of sincerity do we move from the land of "acceptable courtesy and flirtation" to "social manipulation?"

 

Sincere flirting, courtesy, and compliments are not social manipulation. Using those as "tools" to get what you want, rather than offering them with the sincerity of a kind heart, is social manipulation. At least, to me.

[johan]

He clearly did not insult the entire male membership of this forum.

 

Interesting that you resort back to generalizations to defend your point of view.

 

I didn't take the original post as having anything to do with me, so I didn't feel insulted.

 

I took it to be a reference to an especially vocal minority that I'm not a part of. It was actually a passive shot at that minority. But as men, with the courage of their convictions, I wouldn't expect them to be especially bothered by it.

 

Why spend your time swatting at flies when there are dragons out there to slay? Unless flies freak you out, and dragons are just out of the question.

[dasein]

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.

 

No it's not, counseling men not to say ILY too fast? How exactly is that manipulative of women in the same way not picking up one's phone is manipulative of men? One act involves rudely ignoring another human being, the other does not. If Doc Love's system is manipulative of anyone it's his CLIENTs who are manipulated, in good ways, not the women they date.

 

Here's dasein's "bad man" PUA manual:

 

1. Tell women whatever lies it takes to get them in bed, that you love them, want to marry them, want children, ready to settle down.

2. Figure out what a particular woman's weakness is and exploit it for your benefit to crush her self-esteem and keep her under control.

3. Always pretend you are on the verge of commitment when it's time to get what you want, but never actually give it. Never commit.

 

You won't see any PUA counseling the above, despite those being effective techniques. Why? Several reasons, 1) despite what women think, most men are honorable and won't do the above, 2) you can't "sell" the above, everyone knows instinctively that they have a choice to be a lying a-hole available, 3) such a PUA would be subject to lots of rightful public scorn.

 

The irony of this thread and others similar is that the PUA culture, the industry that is built on doing things the right way when compared to the above, is constantly accused of manipulation, etc., and the above alternatives are never discussed. Women complain when someone links an approach on youtube or when some guy uses the term "daygame," or when some guy says he expects a kiss on the first date, as if the Lord of Darkness has entered the building, without any concern for what this is really saying, that the man has chosen a more healthy, -less manipulative- path than others readily and easily available.

 

No, I don't want to read the "Tao of..." anything other than the Tao of... Te Ching, nor do I want to read watered down feminized male dating advice one tends to get in the "relationship book" arena. PUAs cut through lots of nonsense to tools and results, and men respond to that business model moreso than we respond to book authors trying to fluff a 50 page book into 500 pages.

 

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.

 

Personally, I don't neg women and don't think it's an effective technique either, but the above is unresponsive to what I posted for the most part. The main point was that it gets paralyzed men comfortable with normal as opposed to stilted interactions with women.

 

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.

 

Don't worry, it's highly unlikely you would ever be given that opportunity.

[dasein]

He clearly did not insult the entire male membership of this forum.

 

Interesting that you resort back to generalizations to defend your point of view.

 

So just how narrowly are we to interpret "This forum does NOT represent the majority of men" or later statement, "the nicer ones aren't posting?" to comport with bizarro world interpretations as "not insulting?"

 

Interesting indeed.

[Oxy Moronovich]

I am no PUA either but I don't like men who feel the need to somehow apologize for the rest of the gender. You can be a decent guy without throwing your own gender under the bus.

Yeah man, his OP was extremely lame. The posts on this forum don't represent the majority of people in either gender. If you need someone to point this out then you truly are a lamebrain.

[sid3]

wait! Am I gay or seeking women's approval here?? I'm confused. Can I be both?

 

I don't think you're gay, that's unlikely. Probably not a bad guy either, your just seeking womens' approval by saying gay things. People have called you on it, big deal. There is no right or wrong. It's not popcorn worthy.

[serial muse]

I am no PUA either but I don't like men who feel the need to somehow apologize for the rest of the gender. You can be a decent guy without throwing your own gender under the bus.

 

Sorry, Woggle, I don't buy this argument, because you do want women to apologize for the actions of other women. You've asked for that kind of "acknowledgment" many times here on LS.

[dasein]

No. Acting a specific way that is not indicative of any facet of who you are JUST to get someone to like you is, though (i.e. only saying or doing something to get someone to like you).

 

Sincere flirting, courtesy, and compliments are not social manipulation. Using those as "tools" to get what you want, rather than offering them with the sincerity of a kind heart, is social manipulation. At least, to me.

 

Hair splitting. What we say and do -is- who we are by definition, already dealt with lying, which no PUA counsels. Also "sincere" and "self-interested" are not mutually exclusive. How truly "sincere" do you expect men to be when approaching total or near total strangers?

[Woggle]

Sorry, Woggle, I don't buy this, because you do want women to apologize for the actions of other women. You've asked for that kind of "acknowledgment" many times here on LS.

 

I don't post things because I want women to apologize for the actions of other women. I just sometimes need reassurance that not all women are like the horror stories I hear about. It's why I really am trying to cut back on the negativity and I start those positive relationship threads.

[verhrzn]

I don't post things because I want women to apologize for the actions of other women. I just sometimes need reassurance that not all women are like the horror stories I hear about. It's why I really am trying to cut back on the negativity and I start those positive relationship threads.

 

But isn't that what this thread was trying to do... give reassurance to women that not all guys are women-haters, or players?

[Oxy Moronovich]

But isn't that what this thread was trying to do... give reassurance to women that not all guys are women-haters, or players?

And has this thread given reassurance to you and other women on this? Has it given you enough assurance to stop complaining that dating is slanted in favor of men? Or are you and other whiny female posters going to keep complaining?

[dasein]

Just follow your own posts D, or FGM or PD, or whoever elses who only start threads to insult, criticize and analyze women. Or the posters who turn any thread by a women into an "example" of how women are X, Y and Z. You're pretty good at throwing mud at the women of LS. And we respond with as much outrage, humor and tolerance as your posse did here.

 

What a crock, but typical. Care to cite any such threads I have started? The dating advice I give here on LS is all based on my experience and knowledge of what works and doesn't. If I say "men, don't ever tell a woman anything substantial about yourself until she is completely in love with you or begging for marriage," it's because of significant personal experience and hundreds of threads here backing that sentiment up, not some animus against women generally.

 

If you interpret that, or rants about feminism, etc. as throwing mud at "women of LS," even though such posts are limited to the words posted and not character assessments of those posting them (unlike a huge number of posts directed at me), that's a -you- problem, not a -me- problem. Get over it.