"Science of sex" : Doccumentary shows that a mans car can make him more attractive.

[udolipixie]

You told the gals nothing, you taught them the surface stuff.

 

Most of the serious guys who do this either to get tons of ONS or to improve their one LTR do it in ways that can't be taught.

You can't vaccinate women against this, because women are already vaccinated against it.

Women became vaccinated against it when Mystery and Style made it popular and every dumb guy copied them.

 

If you want to go into the realm of sexual violence, men get raped too ... but that would go against your feminist teachings.

Men also become the victims of DV quite often too, without any support out there.

 

I told and taught the gals about basic psychological manipulaiton, sociological manipulation, and neurolinguistic programming along with PUA tactics. Though as you weren't there it's a toss up on whether I told them nothing and taught them surface stuff. I agree that I taught them surface stuff when I was using PUA tactics.

 

If guys do it in ways that can't be taught that suggests a innate skill otherwise they would need resources to get information how to get the skill and develop it.

 

I didn't want to go into the realm of sexual violence.

 

I did want to show how gender generalizations and stereotypes can bite back.

 

My comment to dasein was 'If you're implying that manipulation is a innate female thing rather than a people thing I'd like to see the response to sexual violence is an innate male thing gender generalizations and stereotypes tend to bite back when turned around. '

 

Interesting that you're focused on feminist teachings and how guys get raped to then the turnaround of a negative gender generalization. Though your comment does support my view of it's a people thing not a gender thing.

 

Exactly where/when did I state, imply, or suggest I was a feminist?

 

Exactly how does showing how gender generalizations and stereotypes may bite back a way of men get rape too goes but that would go against your feminist teachings?

[TheBigQuestion]

I think LoveShack is one of the only places on Earth where you will see a lot of women categorically deny that their gender is primarily attracted to men of high status and wealth. This is even funnier when nearly all female LS regulars are either dating, engaged, or married to men who are far, far wealthier than they ever will be. I honestly don't see what's so bad about this fact. What irritates me is when women try to deny the shallowness of other women or, more particularly, when they try to make it seem like a mere coincidence that the guy they're with just happens to be rather "high status." They will often try to rationalize their choice that they used to date guys who didn't have money, a nice car, and a lucrative job.

 

Seriously, just cut the crap out. Anyone who has been alive for more than 22 years or so recognizes how transparent you are being.

[udolipixie]

Post some twisted brag about teaching women to weaken or break men's self esteem and my meow comment is tame compared to what kind of response is warranted. No PUA tactics I've ever seen counsel treating people cruelly in an effort to "break them down," despite that the attraction game necessarily involves some degree of mild manipulation on both ends. I imagine there will be "stick and hole" observations upcoming.

 

Egh it's your intrepretation that I was bragging.

 

I made a comment on the elements of truth I see in PUA and how I taught it along with other tactics to gals showing the PUA tactics aren't a gender applicable but people applicable.

 

Different experiences as I've seen plenty of PUA tactics advised and counseled on treating gals cruelly subtly in an effort to break them down and make them more receptive to advances.

[123321]

I think LoveShack is one of the only places on Earth where you will see a lot of women categorically deny that their gender is primarily attracted to men of high status and wealth.

 

They've been told they should be ashamed of this and many believed it. In the old days, or in other places, a man who is "a good provider" is openly sought after, and men understand this and try to become good providers. In America, feminists have even f*cked that simple thing up.

[Radu]

To me sets tend to be hard to break because the people often have no reason to socialize with others as they already have options and often those options are people they know closely. So it comes to:

Stranger vs people I know

Taking time to get to know the stranger vs people I know

Likely unwanted stranger vs people I want

yet, you have tons of women on these boards and in the media complaining that guys won't approach them when they are out with their gf's in clubs ... who wants what ?

 

I know what BS means and to me it's a coined term for a gal's disinterest, dislike, and not wanting to socialize being resistance for what a guy desires positive reception.

agreed, it is that

 

Egh good impression or not likely the guys still want to use negative remarks and back handed compliments or questions to have the best chance of a gal doing as he wishes.

they lack empathy, and basic courteasy.

 

I haven't seen the majority of PUA media stating negging is only used to bring a gal with an unrealistic view of herself and arrogrant ego back to reality. I have seen many PUA media stating negging is an insult, hidden insult, back handed compliment, or negative remark wrapped in a compliment and it's used to knock a gal down, knock her down a peg or two, weaken her self-confidence, weaken her self-esteem to put her in a position to be receptive to you.

this is the problem.

The mainstream media which handles this came from underground.

When it became mainstream, it got enslaved by the quest for money. Many of the guys that were around when Myster/Style made their breakthrough are kinda pissed off at them.

It sounds weird, right ... untill you realise that all of this was never meant to make money, it was meant to help men and the fact that what works for one guy won't work for other guys.

These guys who went public and started making money, generally do not teach this, they try to pack it up as a pill and sell it to desperate guys.

Have you seen the ammount of money that some of these guys will pay for it ?

I've seen bootcamp offers in the 5k dollar range.

And the horrible truth is, what they teach generally only works for ONS, and it generally won't work for someone else, because it will look as fake.

Mystery's show was completely artificial, even the very good looking and experienced ones have success rates [they get number], of around 20-25%.

They just closed off a club in LA and packed it with actor extras.

 

The only ones that do this solely for helping men are the ones that promote what is called 'inner game', which is basically starting to improve yourself and respect yourself [as well as her], and who don't ask for a ton of money for it.

In the real PUA community, Mystery/Style are sellouts.

 

As for your use of NLP- better in what way? Better for you? Better for both as in you have a gf/wife and you know or have an idea of what she desires and NLP will achieve that?

It can be better for me. It can be better for her as well because you can tap into her emotions and maybe even amplify them.

NLP basic stuff does teaches how to look at visual cues in the body, body language ... mostly how to look at changes.

But my personal take on this is that it also helps immensely in the real of overall human relationships. It can make you a great leader, a great salesman ... and incidently this is where it is used a lot.

 

read in bold.

[dasein]

Exactly where/when did I state, imply, or suggest I was a feminist?

 

You regularly post feminist dogma to this forum. But fair enough, are you a feminist or not?

 

Back to the topic, I can't decide whether I should wear more? or less? deodorant after watching the vids.

[udolipixie]

You used them in a way that showed you didn't understand their roots, and you still don't understand the differences between them.

You see it all as a weapon, as a great threat to women everywhere, men are starting to learn how to play like us ... eeeegads !

 

Just like you don't understand the Madonna/Whore complex and what it is.

Madonna/Whore means that we can end up seeing the same woman in extremes, not that we separate women into Madonna's and Whores.

If that were to happen, all of the married girls wouldn't get laid ... EVER.

 

I do understand the roots of PUA. The roots of PUA to me is to pick up gals for what purpose depends on the guy- ONS, NSA, or relationship.

 

I used PUA tactics in a way to show the gals and the guys who observe that PUA tactics aren't only applicable to gals.

 

I do understand the Madonna/Whore complex it seems you don't understand that it can be either viewing the same gal as extremes or separating gals as extremes. Sigmund Freud first identified it as a psychological complex said to develop in guys who see gals as either saintly Madonnas or debased prostitutes. That the guys desire a sexual partner who has been degraded (the whore) while they cannot desire the respected partner (the Madonna).

 

In most cases where it does happen the guy has what he considers respectful vanilla sex with his Madonna while cheating on her to get his other sexual urges out with the Whore that he feels would debase his gf/wife.

[udolipixie]

You regularly post feminist dogma to this forum. But fair enough, are you a feminist or not?

 

Back to the topic, I can't decide whether I should wear more? or less? deodorant after watching the vids.

 

What feminist dogma?

 

That there is neither a majority good and minority bad or such when it comes to guys or gals?

 

That negative traits and behaviors are a people thing not a gender thing?

[TheBigQuestion]

They've been told they should be ashamed of this and many believed it. In the old days, or in other places, a man who is "a good provider" is openly sought after, and men understand this and try to become good providers. In America, feminists have even f*cked that simple thing up.

 

A handful of female regulars have admitted to being out-earned by their boyfriends/finacees/husbands by ratios of as much as 4 to 1. That information only comes up when you read threads that don't relate to the types of questions presented by this thread's OP, because that would obviously erode the "We aren't shallow!/at least I'm not shallow/you can't box all women in the same category!" arguments they love furthering. However, if you just casually lurk and read this message board enough, you learn all sorts of interesting things about people. Be assured, no poster here regardless of gender or whatever religious and philosophical principles they claim to adhere to is innocent of hypocrisy and laughable denial.

[dasein]

What irritates me is when women try to deny the shallowness of other women or, more particularly, when they try to make it seem like a mere coincidence that the guy they're with just happens to be rather "high status." They will often try to rationalize their choice that they used to date guys who didn't have money, a nice car, and a lucrative job.

 

It truly does preclude lots of meaningful discussion here, and relates back to the narcissism thread. Being unable to admit unfavorable things, or things that aren't really unfavorable but may be perceived so, about oneself or a group one belongs to is narcissistic. Not suggesting that women who deny the wealth-attraction facts are all narcissists, but it is definitely in that family of behavioral response.

[TheBigQuestion]

It truly does preclude lots of meaningful discussion here, and relates back to the narcissism thread. Being unable to admit unfavorable things, or things that aren't really unfavorable but may be perceived so, about oneself or a group one belongs to is narcissistic. Not suggesting that women who deny the wealth-attraction facts are all narcissists, but it is definitely in that family of behavioral response.

 

 

Just watch. At some point, some of them will start chiming in here about how the OP's videos don't apply to them and/or the circles of people with which they associate. That's when you can search their posting history and realize they're full of it.

[dasein]

What feminist dogma?

 

Please.

 

and it was a very simple question.

[Radu]

I do understand the roots of PUA. The roots of PUA to me is to pick up gals for what purpose depends on the guy- ONS, NSA, or relationship.

 

I used PUA tactics in a way to show the gals and the guys who observe that PUA tactics aren't only applicable to gals.

 

I do understand the Madonna/Whore complex it seems you don't understand that it can be either viewing the same gal as extremes or separating gals as extremes. Sigmund Freud first identified it as a psychological complex said to develop in guys who see gals as either saintly Madonnas or debased prostitutes. That the guys desire a sexual partner who has been degraded (the whore) while they cannot desire the respected partner (the Madonna).

 

In most cases where it does happen the guy has what he considers respectful vanilla sex with his Madonna while cheating on her to get his other sexual urges out with the Whore that he feels would debase his gf/wife.

 

Well, Freud would know about this wouldn't he ?

 

Most of the times M/W doesn't affect a guy throughout his life [always seeing M/W] but it affects the girl he is with [once or twice ... comes out of the blue]. Women are generally smart enough to move away from the one that sees constantly only extremes with women.

In fact, most of the times when i heard the classification of 'wh*re' it came from women, not men and it was about woman. Though i heard 'sl*t' more often than the above mentioned one.

 

And if you did understand where PUA came from, you certainly didn't show it.

 

And you do post mostly feminist dogma.

That's the impression we have as you, because we see you as very vocal in threads, apologetically explaining away female behaviour.

Like in this thread, you circled it like a vulture, missinterpreted and missrepresented ideeas as facts, and when you got called on it you started doing semantics when you yourself was extatic about 'teaching women about these PUA guys' ... i wonder how proud you were of this.

 

You see it as a threat, you don't see it as a way for the genders to better understand eachother.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Radu

[udolipixie]

yet, you have tons of women on these boards and in the media complaining that guys won't approach them when they are out with their gf's in clubs ... who wants what?

Bit unsure of why you're mentioning gals who complain about not being approached as I was stating my experiences further explaining why sets often are hard to break rather than your 'mostly because the hottest girl is on a power trip, and she dictates things.' I didn't state, suggest, or imply that gals don't want to be approach rather I listed the often reasons why gals in groups don't want to be approached according to my experience.

 

I'm aware that many gals complain about guys not approaching them. I'm also aware that many gals complain about guys approaching them as there are plenty who complain that guys do approach them*. It's not the 'guys I don't want approach' complaint but rather 'I don't want guys to approach' complaint.

 

Have you seen the ammount of money that some of these guys will pay for it?

Yes as I used them as a baseline when I charged guys who I taught my enhanced version of PUA and pyschological/sociological manipulations.

 

And the horrible truth is, what they teach generally only works for ONS, and it generally won't work for someone else, because it will look as fake.

I'm a bit unsure how that's a horrible truth unless the guy wanted more than a ONS or a person viewing the situation thinks badly of ONS.

 

It can be better for me. It can be better for her as well because you can tap into her emotions and maybe even amplify them.

In what way(s) do you see or possibly see tapping into her emotions and possibly amplifying them can be better for her?

[threebyfate]

As a car enthusiast, any guy who doesn't know his way around a car is nothing to me!

[Radu]

yet, you have tons of women on these boards and in the media complaining that guys won't approach them when they are out with their gf's in clubs ... who wants what?

Bit unsure of why you're mentioning gals who complain about not being approached as I was stating my experiences further explaining why sets often are hard to break rather than your 'mostly because the hottest girl is on a power trip, and she dictates things.' I didn't state, suggest, or imply that gals don't want to be approach rather I listed the often reasons why gals in groups don't want to be approached according to my experience.

 

I'm aware that many gals complain about guys not approaching them. I'm also aware that many gals complain about guys approaching them as there are plenty who complain that guys do approach them*. It's not the 'guys I don't want approach' complaint but rather 'I don't want guys to approach' complaint.

 

Oh my bad, so you spend 2hs fixing yourself up, maybe even getting your hair done, and you DO NOT want guys approaching.

Yeah, who does that ?

 

---------

 

Have you seen the ammount of money that some of these guys will pay for it?

Yes as I used them as a baseline when I charged guys who I taught my enhanced version of PUA and pyschological/sociological manipulations.

 

Wow, you charged for this and you made these many wrong assumptions ?

At least Mystery/Style had some succes with their program.

 

---------

 

And the horrible truth is, what they teach generally only works for ONS, and it generally won't work for someone else, because it will look as fake.

I'm a bit unsure how that's a horrible truth unless the guy wanted more than a ONS or a person viewing the situation thinks badly of ONS.

 

It is a bad thing, because it teaches some buttons to push without understanding why you push those buttons and for what purpose you do that.

Eventually those buttons will get worn down, and he will have achieved no self-improvement.

 

---------

 

It can be better for me. It can be better for her as well because you can tap into her emotions and maybe even amplify them.

In what way(s) do you see or possibly see tapping into her emotions and possibly amplifying them can be better for her?

You charge money for this, i'm not going to tell you. Do your own work.

 

Read in bold.

[udolipixie]

Please.

 

and it was a very simple question.

 

Is 'Please' a way of implying you can't?

 

It often seems that my regularly posted feminist dogma to you is being aware that guys can have negative behaviors and traits and/or not having some idealized view of guys.

 

I already stated what I was when you began a discussion stating that there's only prevalent misandry in society and there's no prevalent misgyony all the while going on with assumptions of how I'm taking women's studies with a professor feeding me feminist lies. Despite my repeated statements that I didn't take women's studies.

 

Recall the discussion as when shown misgyony you excused and minimized it before blame shifting stating if there's any prevalent misgyony it's due to feminism.

 

You exited when I turned it around saying how would you like to be told if there's any prevalent misandry or misandry in feminism it's because of past denial of rights, previous misgynony, and such. That was a very simple question as well.

[dasein]

I already stated what I was when you began a discussion

 

I see, so this is about your remaining peeved about my unwillingness sometime in the past (can't remember exactly where) to accept your citing to trolls and anonymous cranks on the internet as convincing evidence of pervasive societal misogyny. So you are now dancing around the simple question of whether you are or are not a feminist. Fine. Utterly bizarre, but fine.

[Radu]

I see, so this is about your remaining peeved about my unwillingness sometime in the past (can't remember exactly where) to accept your citing to trolls and anonymous cranks on the internet as convincing evidence of pervasive societal misogyny. So you are now dancing around the simple question of whether you are or are not a feminist. Fine. Utterly bizarre, but fine.

 

Call it what it is ... a game of 'i'm not but what are you' made with big words.

[udolipixie]

In fact, most of the times when i heard the classification of 'wh*re' it came from women, not men and it was about woman. Though i heard 'sl*t' more often than the above mentioned one.

Very different experiences as mine have been most of the times slut, skank, whore, and such tends to come guys about gals. Though my experiences suggest it's the meme when it such terms that guys claim gals do it more than guys.

 

And if you did understand where PUA came from, you certainly didn't show it.

My purpose in teaching the gals wasn't to show that where PUA comes from but to show the gals and guys that PUA tactics have truth to them and could be used on guys as well that it wasn't only applicable to gals.

 

And you do post mostly feminist dogma.

Exactly what feminist dogma?

 

I'm a bit curious as to what you consider feminist dogma considering that you responded with my comment turning around a negative gender generalization to show they bite back with 'men get raped too but that goes against your feminist teachings'

 

Interesting that to you 'men get raped too but that goes against your feminist teachings' was appliable to this-

'If you're implying that manipulation is a innate female thing rather than a people thing I'd like to see the response to sexual violence is an innate male thing gender generalizations and stereotypes tend to bite back when turned around. '

 

That's the impression we have as you, because we see you as very vocal in threads, apologetically explaining away female behaviour.

Exactly where/when have I apologetically explained away female behavior? As to my recollection I haven't been apologetical about any gender's behavior. I do recall often say behavior no matter the gender doesn't surprise me and explaining why.

 

Like in this thread, you circled it like a vulture, missinterpreted and missrepresented ideeas as facts, and when you got called on it you started doing semantics when you yourself was extatic about 'teaching women about these PUA guys' ... i wonder how proud you were of this.

How did I circle it like a vulture?

What did I misintrepret?

What ideas did I misintrepret as facts?

 

I wasn't teaching gals aobut these PUA guys I was teaching gals about psychological/social manipulation, neurolinguistic programming, and PUA tactics. I was showing them that PUA tactics aren't gender applicable but people applicable.

 

You see it as a threat, you don't see it as a way for the genders to better understand eachother.

Where/when did I state, suggest, or imply I see it as a threat?

 

Where/when did I state, suggest, or imply I don't see PUA as a way for the genders to better understand each other?

 

Pretty interesting conclusion considering I haven't made any judgements on what I see PUA as.

[RedRobin]

I'm stating the truth I see in PUA are tactics such as negging and NLP as they are psychological manipulations.

 

Similar tactics are used in a business setting and in many HR departments to manipulate their employees into accepting less pay, working harder... etc.

 

It is classic negative reinforcement tactics. The same could be gained from reading any dog training book... although I would never treat my dog like that.

 

I remember having a similar discussion with one of my friends... a 25 yr employee of a large multinational. When I described the steps on how this particular company maintained company loyalty, her face turned white and she said "damn, I'm getting my resume together today!"

 

Of course, she didn't. That's ok. What my discussion with her did was help her be objective and not take their manipulations personally... to avoid those who used those tactics... and take the rest with a grain of salt. Which is successfully helping her manage things until she is old enough to retire.

[udolipixie]

Oh my bad, so you spend 2hs fixing yourself up, maybe even getting your hair done, and you DO NOT want guys approaching.

Yeah, who does that ?

I know many gals who do that as they dress for themselves not to get male attention.

 

Have you seen the ammount of money that some of these guys will pay for it?

Yes as I used them as a baseline when I charged guys who I taught my enhanced version of PUA and pyschological/sociological manipulations.

 

Wow, you charged for this and you made these many wrong assumptions ?

Again what wrong assumptions have I made-

That negging is a tactic used in PUA.

That NLP is a tactic used in PUA.

That PUA isn't gender applicable but people applicable.

 

Seems the only one making assumptions is you. Such as when you had repeated telling me that PUA is not NLP despite my repeated statements that I never stated PUA was NLP.

 

You charge money for this, i'm not going to tell you. Do your own work.

I didn't charge money to show guys how tapping into her emotions and possibly amplifying them can be better for her.

 

I charged to use pyschological/sociological manipulations to get ONS, NSA, and relationships geared to his benefit.

 

I did my own work as psychological/sociological manipulation tends to be about getting a person in a receptive mood to what you want or to do what you want. It seems only therapy involves manipulation that may be better for the person being manipulation.

 

My work isn't therapeutical so care to answer question of in what way(s) do you see or possibly see tapping into her emotions and possibly amplifying them can be better for her?

[Radu]

In fact, most of the times when i heard the classification of 'wh*re' it came from women, not men and it was about woman. Though i heard 'sl*t' more often than the above mentioned one.

Very different experiences as mine have been most of the times slut, skank, whore, and such tends to come guys about gals. Though my experiences suggest it's the meme when it such terms that guys claim gals do it more than guys.

Then maybe you are closed off to the negative comments women have on other women.

It has been my experience, when i'm with a group of girls, they will rip on girls with 'slut' quite often, i suspect in a way to make it known to males that 'they are not like that'.

---

 

And if you did understand where PUA came from, you certainly didn't show it.

My purpose in teaching the gals wasn't to show that where PUA comes from but to show the gals and guys that PUA tactics have truth to them and could be used on guys as well that it wasn't only applicable to gals.

PUA can be used by women but much of PUA is already in women.

In a way, men have from a biological pov have 'less' than women when it come to social situations.

For more information, i suggest you look into studies on brain differences between men and women. They are quite interesting, and they do explain a lot of things.

---

 

And you do post mostly feminist dogma.

Exactly what feminist dogma?

 

I'm a bit curious as to what you consider feminist dogma considering that you responded with my comment turning around a negative gender generalization to show they bite back with 'men get raped too but that goes against your feminist teachings'

 

Interesting that to you 'men get raped too but that goes against your feminist teachings' was appliable to this-

'If you're implying that manipulation is a innate female thing rather than a people thing I'd like to see the response to sexual violence is an innate male thing gender generalizations and stereotypes tend to bite back when turned around. '

see, you again throw around concepts of ideeas, putting stuff into other ppl's mouths.

My reference to male rape had nothing to do with manipulation.

Male rape is not recognized mainstream but it happens quite a lot, especially in prisons, while female rape gets trivialized by the police not punishing fake rape reports.

 

-------

 

That's the impression we have as you, because we see you as very vocal in threads, apologetically explaining away female behaviour.

Exactly where/when have I apologetically explained away female behavior? As to my recollection I haven't been apologetical about any gender's behavior. I do recall often say behavior no matter the gender doesn't surprise me and explaining why.

i'm not going to go through all of your posts and make a statistic now, if you want to do it and have the free time, go for it.

Suffice to say this is the impression you give accros.

There are posters who are female apologists [male too] and there are posters who are male apologists, with some very few in-between.

The impression you give off is of a female apologist.

------

 

Like in this thread, you circled it like a vulture, missinterpreted and missrepresented ideeas as facts, and when you got called on it you started doing semantics when you yourself was extatic about 'teaching women about these PUA guys' ... i wonder how proud you were of this.

How did I circle it like a vulture?

What did I misintrepret?

What ideas did I misintrepret as facts?

 

I wasn't teaching gals aobut these PUA guys I was teaching gals about psychological/social manipulation, neurolinguistic programming, and PUA tactics. I was showing them that PUA tactics aren't gender applicable but people applicable.

this is the first time you mention the last sentence. The first time in this entire thread.

---------

 

You see it as a threat, you don't see it as a way for the genders to better understand eachother.

Where/when did I state, suggest, or imply I see it as a threat?

 

Where/when did I state, suggest, or imply I don't see PUA as a way for the genders to better understand each other?

 

Pretty interesting conclusion considering I haven't made any judgements on what I see PUA as.

then why are you combative about it ?

 

read in bold.

[123321]

read in bold.

 

Please take 20 seconds and learn to quote properly. Use [] with the text 'quote' or '/quote' to begin and end a quoted section, much like you are already using [] with 'b' and '/b' inside.

[RedRobin]

To the topic of the OP...

 

I don't argue that 'marketing' works on a certain segment of the population. It is why millions of $$ are spent on it every year. People are social animals and tend take their cues off of others. Um, herd mentality. Yep.

 

There is a topic in the book 'blink' that talks about the power of first impressions. There is nothing new or even that interesting in the premise of the OP.