PUA: My First Impressions...

[Imported]

Are you saying you need to be taught how to f*ck/make love?

 

Nah, you just stick your dick in one of her holes and thrust right?

 

Yes of course I had to learn.

[Failboy]

To everyone:

 

So, is it fair to say that PUA is for men and its primary aim is to improve their ability to get sex?

 

 

I don't know about other people and won't judge like that.

 

More me, I always just wanted to be a normal person. Women make it seem that men who want to have a normal sex life are disgusting creeps or something. Just because women have the ability wo have sex without even doing anything and men have to work hard for it, doesn't make those men disgusting or focused on sex.

At a certain point in my life, I couldn't even talk to women. So basically, I just wanted to become a normal person, with having sex being a part of being a normal person - but certainly not the main focus.

[Taramere]

OK. I did, found the two "femcunts" threads (out of many with no objectionable titles), which are directed at feminists, and specific feminist behavior by both men and women, not women generally, PUA techniques, etc. I also did a little looking into the motivation for one of those threads, it was the following video:

 

 

After watching it, jaw dropping, I can't imagine a better term to describe the deplorable behavior of both male and female feminists in it.

 

Perhaps you will watch the video and suggest a better, less misogynistic term to describe the behavior you see in it. I'm all ears.

 

Back to the topic, I didn't even find sosouave on the top three pages of google (actually dogpile) results of PUA forums. So since I've looked at yours, please do me the courtesy of looking at mine now, and describing misogyny on the top large PUA sites.

 

I answered your question. Predictably you justified the use of femcunts. I picked sosuave due to the history of various members on there posting on here. As for looking at other pua sites, I'll maybe get around to it later but I've got something else I'd rather do right now.

[Failboy]

What makes you think I'd reject you? Are you assuming that just because I'm pretty, I'm stuck up? Do you assume this with other pretty women? All women don't think alike. All of us are not shallow and self-absorbed.

 

 

Well, if you indeed feature a pretty face and a hot body, you'd simply have much better options and you'd be very aware of that matter.

So unless I strike a major chord with you (statistical chance 1 in 1000 or so) there is virtually no reason for you to bang me. You could do much better.

 

I don't even pity myself or anything. I'm just saying.

[dasein]

Like this fine example, right on the first page:

 

You too. Go google the top PUA forums and read them honestly, not pick a single post off sosoauve. BTW the post you quoted was a guy saying in essence, "I don't want to date some older woman who would have rejected me in her prime and is settling for me now." Good advice for anyone, male or female, not to settle for being settled for, I don't see any particular misogyny there and if genders were reversed, would tell such an OP, "attagirl." And "harridan?" That's the equivalent of calling a man a douchebag or a dick, not really getting the innately misogynistic air in that term. Perhaps a change to "The Taming of the Disagreeable Woman" would be more PC for Bill S.? Do tell.

 

Also, once again, thanks so much taramere for drawing my attention to the Farrell protest video. That kind of thing will be really useful in my posts the next time feminism comes up as a topic. Was getting bored of the same old Erin Pizzey link.

[Taramere]

Also, once again, thanks so much taramere for drawing my attention to the Farrell protest video. That kind of thing will be really useful in my posts the next time feminism comes up as a topic. Was getting bored of the same old Erin Pizzey link.

 

Oh you're welcome. I know how much that stuff preoccupies you in your free time.

[dasein]

I answered your question. Predictably you justified the use of femcunts. I picked sosuave due to the history of various members on there posting on here. As for looking at other pua sites, I'll maybe get around to it later but I've got something else I'd rather do right now.

 

Of course you do. Come into a thread, make an unfounded claim based on looking at one particularly notorious forum, and then when called on it, "I've got something better to do." I see.

 

I know you watched the video too. Thoroughly illuminating, no?

[Tara247]

Well, if you indeed feature a pretty face and a hot body, you'd simply have much better options and you'd be very aware of that matter.

So unless I strike a major chord with you (statistical chance 1 in 1000 or so) there is virtually no reason for you to bang me. You could do much better.

 

I don't even pity myself or anything. I'm just saying.

 

You have low self-esteem. Look at the name you've chosen. You should never think someone could do "much better" than you. I think counseling could help you. Seriously, we all have problems. Why not just work on the things you want to make better?

[threebyfate]

To paraphrase someone from my past, the ones drawn to unethical and irrational concepts like PUA and misogyny, were already that way inclined. Sad.

[Failboy]

You have low self-esteem. Look at the name you've chosen. You should never think someone could do "much better" than you. I think counseling could help you. Seriously, we all have problems. Why not just work on the things you want to make better?

 

 

I am a hardcore realist, a reality-junkie, an anti political correctness type of guy. I try to see things for what they are, not for what they should be.

 

And the fact is, without any low self-esteem on my part, that a woman with a hot body and a beautiful face could do much better. That is not to belittle myself - it is just how the world is. If I say that Bill Gates makes more money in a week than I will ever see in my life, does it imply that I have low self-esteem? No, it is just rational and correct judgement of reality.

 

You on the other hand have the irrational conception that any man who is not disgusting to the core can get laid on a regular basis without using tactics or money. That is just wrong.

[Taramere]

Of course you do. Come into a thread, make an unfounded claim based on looking at one particularly notorious forum, and then when called on it, "I've got something better to do." I see.

 

I know you watched the video too. Thoroughly illuminating, no?

 

I didn't watch it. I do just drop in and out. I'm afraid I'm not as dedicated to this entire subject as you are and not prepared to invest the same time in it. However, you asked me to direct you to the pua forum where that terminology was used, I did so. Request fulfilled....and much as I know how much you adore me and would enjoy engaging me in discussion around the clock, once again you've had your quota.

[Mme. Chaucer]

BTW the post you quoted was a guy saying in essence, "I don't want to date some older woman who would have rejected me in her prime and is settling for me now."

 

I understand what he was saying "in essence" without a translation. It was the hateful way he CHOSE to say it that I wanted to share.

 

And I even know what a "harridan" is.

 

If a person doesn't wan to date somebody because they feel like they're being "settled for," there is no reason to bring gender bashing and reproductive organs into the conversation, for non sexist people, anyway.

 

I don't hang around on ANY feminist or otherwise women centered boards where men are talked about in similar ways - EVER. No one I know does, or would.

[TheBigQuestion]

Of course you do. Come into a thread, make an unfounded claim based on looking at one particularly notorious forum, and then when called on it, "I've got something better to do." I see.

 

I know you watched the video too. Thoroughly illuminating, no?

 

I'm struggling to see how anyone could excuse any of the behavior displayed in that video. I'm sure someone here will try to rationalize it somehow.

[dasein]

Is it? I would have thought that would be a stupid question. I would have thought that if I asked 'Is the primary aim of driving a car to drag race?', most people would say 'No, it is to get from A to B' (and add something about distances that exceed a reasonable degree of physical effort, or something).

 

Many men have given the "A to B" type rationale in the thread, as have I. Is the primary reason women wear makeup to get sex? Is the primary reason women buy relationship books to get a husband? Similar questions, equally broad potential answers.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I'm struggling to see how anyone could excuse any of the behavior displayed in that video. I'm sure someone here will try to rationalize it somehow.

 

I doubt it (though I didn't watch it either). Isn't this the thread where sleazy behavior in the name of "PUA" is rationalized?

[dasein]

I didn't watch it. I do just drop in and out. I'm afraid I'm not as dedicated to this entire subject as you are and not prepared to invest the same time in it. However, you asked me to direct you to the pua forum where that terminology was used, I did so. Request fulfilled....and much as I know how much you adore me and would enjoy engaging me in discussion around the clock, once again you've had your quota.

 

Stage 1. Dismissal, Stage 3. Personal insults, either direct or veiled,

Yes, I agree, wise of you to short circuit the process with some mild 1 and 3. Until next time then.

 

And no, you didn't honestly answer my original reply to your unfounded claim that PUA sites contain lots of strong misogynist or juvenile content, which you offered as a generalization. I already knew that less trafficked places contain more objectionable posts. The top sites have none or few. Maybe that's reflective of more men seeking seduction advice in a practical, no nonsense environment as opposed to political content or gender baiting.

[TheBigQuestion]

I doubt it (though I didn't watch it either). Isn't this the thread where sleazy behavior in the name of "PUA" is rationalized?

 

I haven't seen anyone here try to deny the existence of, or make justifications for, certain PUA authors and communities that are full of posturing ninnies that peddle useless snake oil, or that many self-identified PUAs have an ax to grind with the fairer sex.

 

I'll repost what I posted on page 3.

 

"At least on this board, PUA is pretty much the only topic that gets a universally negative reaction from female posters. Why this is so I will never understand. Even people (like me) who recognize that a lot of PUA is outdated, useless, counterproductive, or all of the foregoing but who still think it has significant value for inexperienced men have been raked over coals for expressing such a viewpoint.

 

It doesn't seem like any woman has ever conceded that it absolutely CAN have a positive impact, despite the fact that people like the ThaWholigan have provided very concrete, specific examples as to how it helped him. Some women have even gone as far as to insist that it was something else that got him to further his dating goals, despite the fact that as strangers on the internet, they are in no position to make those assumptions.

 

It doesn't seem like any woman can (or is willing to) make the distinction between men being an actual part of the PUA "community" and simply using the advice in their own way, for their own unique ends.

 

Then there are those who insist that only "low class" or unintelligent women could possibly "fall" for PUA "tactics."

 

Then there are those who insist that anyone who is utilizing PUA is some sort of "predator." This is alarmist nonsense and patently false to boot."

 

I can only think of two, maybe three regular posters who self-identify as PUAs and/or are proponents to the memes about women that you (or someone else, not sure) described a while back. Everyone else here is merely trying to explain the above distinctions. Nothing more, nothing less. And frankly, I'm tired of certain people's complete unwillingness to look at the subject from a fair and balanced perspective, and to fail to make distinctions between the people who tr0ll this board with inflammatory rhetoric and regular posters as it pertains to PUA. It's sickening.

 

Fair and balanced viewpoint of PUA = "Some of it is good, some of it no doubt is bad, but people have found it useful, and those who have found it useful are not misogynistic, predatory monsters."

 

What most women post about PUA on here = "LOSERS! PREDATORS! CREEPS! MISOGYNISTS! ONLY LOW CLASS WOMEN WILL FALL FOR YOUR TRICKS! IT WOULD NEVER WORK ON ME!"

[ThaWholigan]

The PUA threads always go the same way.

 

I think the broadness of the material always gets forgotten in the face of the most controversial stuff. Also the new stuff is better and more towards a holistic approach rather than the old stuff.

 

Having said that, I have no dog in this race anymore......

[dasein]

I'm struggling to see how anyone could excuse any of the behavior displayed in that video. I'm sure someone here will try to rationalize it somehow.

 

Or more predictably, pretend they didn't watch it.

 

Anyway, that was linked to make a point about purported misogyny on forums where things other than PUA are discussed. I don't know what to call people in the video, a-holes? Doesn't quite fit the magnitude of it. What I do know is that the use of that objectionable term was not PUA related, just appeared on a PUA board in an offtopic post on feminist doings, and the feminists in question were both male and female.

 

Also know that "harridan" or any other colorful terms used to describe a particular type of woman are not intended to describe women generally, and are no more offensive nor misogynistic in their use than similar terms used to describe a particular kind of man. "Dandy," "fop," "tyrant," "buffoon," "dickhead," "prick," "pig," "dog," etc. etc. are not offensive terms describing men as a gender, but a particular sort.

[TheBigQuestion]

The PUA threads always go the same way.

 

I think the broadness of the material always gets forgotten in the face of the most controversial stuff. Also the new stuff is better and more towards a holistic approach rather than the old stuff.

 

Having said that, I have no dog in this race anymore......

 

You can try to explain how PUA benefited you personally, you can explain it rationally, you can emphasize the vast differences between PUA materials until your face turns blue, you can make a distinction between reading something and being part of something, and it won't make a lick of difference if you're communicating with people who are more interested in being right than in appreciating a different viewpoint or learning anything.

[Mme. Chaucer]

It doesn't seem like any woman can (or is willing to) make the distinction between men being an actual part of the PUA "community" and simply using the advice in their own way, for their own unique ends.

 

I think I just identified myself as such a woman earlier in this thread.

 

Then there are those who insist that only "low class" or unintelligent women could possibly "fall" for PUA "tactics."

 

Honestly, in many of the videos and articles I looked at, the "tactics" seemed to be geared to what appeared to me to be trashy club scenes and the people in them did not seem to be what I'd consider classy or even interesting. Especially the "peacocking" guy who looked like he was wearing a clown suit surrounded by adoring bimbos. Well, maybe they were really nice, intelligent young women but that didn't show in the pictures.

 

And, come to think of it, I might enjoy hanging around with a guy who would wear a clown suit out in public myself. Not in a sexy way, though.

 

What most women post about PUA on here = "LOSERS! PREDATORS! CREEPS! MISOGYNISTS! ONLY LOW CLASS WOMEN WILL FALL FOR YOUR TRICKS! IT WOULD NEVER WORK ON ME!"

 

I think you will find that MOST (not all) of these posts appear in threads about "hunting" for "poonany," "negging," "dames," expiration dates, etc.

 

Bottom line, though, is that most of us wimmins prefer to think that a guy is approaching us because he is interested in us and likes us. Nobody likes to be played.

[TheBigQuestion]

 

 

 

I think you will find that MOST (not all) of these posts appear in threads about "hunting" for "poonany," "negging," "dames," expiration dates, etc.

 

Bottom line, though, is that most of us wimmins prefer to think that a guy is approaching us because he is interested in us and likes us. Nobody likes to be played.

 

No. In the past few weeks, those types of accusations are being made in THESE threads, the threads where PUA's efficacy is the main subject. Hell in this thread alone, multiple women outright said that no man in his right mind (or mature, wise, etc.) would use PUA for any purpose.

 

I agree that people don't like to be played. But that assertion is meaningless when you consider that most PUA does not espouse "playing" anyone in the traditional sense.

 

Ultimately, my point is that no one in this thread is trying to deny or rationalize the existence of useless PUA material and/or angry PUAs.

Edited December 2, 2012 by TheBigQuestion

[mickleb]

Many men have given the "A to B" type rationale in the thread, as have I. Is the primary reason women wear makeup to get sex? Is the primary reason women buy relationship books to get a husband? Similar questions, equally broad potential answers.

 

I might be being a bit thick tonight but I honestly can't see where anyone has given me an 'A to B' type answer. Can you repeat your A to B answer, or anyone else's for me, to help me out? (Apologies if this is tiresome.)

 

In answer to your questions, I'll give a 'yes' and a 'yes'.

[Eddie Edirol]

And you guys that practice these PUA tricks do realized these women that you screw are victims, right? If you have to lie to get sex from a woman, she is your victim because you deceived her.

 

No one is a victim if the sex was consensual.

 

Eddie, PUA techniques are based on reverse psychology, but the way that they espouse the use of these techniques have men appearing stupid, and lame. Again, it is ridiculous and childish.

 

And you base this on how many PUA books youve read? How much rejection did you receive in your life by approaching men? If you havent, you cant relate to how men have to face rejection and dealing with dating women. The psychology is not reverse, it just tosses womens games back in their face.

 

Can't you guys see how ridiculous this is, and that this only works on naive, stupid, immature girls and not real women??

 

If the idea is just to get laid, thats the whole plan. You dont make lasting relationships with stupid immature girls. You have fun with them and run. Thats what the get laid techniques are for. Women dont neeed this stuff because they dont have to do the peacocking.

 

Seriously, there are loose, sex-hungry sluts out and about in abundance these days. You guys don't need to lame techniques to get laid. Oh, wait, you want the really attractive women, right? Even so, again, the really attractive women that you get using these tricks aren't going to be that smart. So, I guess, if getting laid is the objective, go for it. But, just remember you have to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning. The bottom line is that you have lied and deceived someone in order to meet your objective.

 

So youre another one that has fallen for the players quite a few times in your youth I see.

[dasein]

@ mickleb Sorry, forgot this thread was a spinoff, see the other thread it spun from, but no, not going to go dig through that for quotes to link. My A to B answer was that taking time to learn and apply seduction skills took me from the A of having less control over my sexual desires and sex life, to the B of having more control.

 

As far as women wearing makeup to get sex, are you sure "Yes" would be the most common answer? as opposed to "look good for myself," "feel prettier?" Are you sure that most women who read relationship books are seeking to get a husband as opposed to a better relationship? I feel the answers would be more varied.