PUA: My First Impressions...

[mickleb]

@ 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.

 

Hi, sorry, when I was talking about getting an 'A to B' answer, I meant just a simple one. A 'yes' or 'no' would've been ideal. But I'd say, from your answer, if I asked again 'Is it fair to say that PUA is for men and it's primary aim is to help them get sex', that your 'yes/no' answer would fall with a 'yes'. Am I wrong on that?

 

The question you asked me was 'Is the primary reason women wear make-up to get sex?' I took note of the word 'primary' and answered with a 'yes'. That is my opinion. There could be a whole host of other reasons why women wear make-up: 'to feel normal' as Failboy, put it, for example, but I think that 'normal' would still be related to feeling sexually desirable. So, yes, I think the primary reason women wear make-up is to get sex.

 

And the same is true for my other yes. 'Is the primary reason women buy relationship books to get a husband?' Obviously, relationship books can cover a spectrum of issues and some are aimed at women and men, or just even just men. But I'd guess that the majority of relationship books bought by women are likely to be purchased by single women who would like to get married, and who hope the book they buy will help them to do so.

Edited December 3, 2012 by mickleb
unnecessary auxiliary verb

[dasein]

Well, OK, if we are limited to yes and no, then within the strict parameters you have set up for the question, would answer "yes," to "Is the primary aim of PUA for men to get sex?"

[Imajerk17]

These threads that have PUA as a topic can always be counted on to liven the party at LS.

 

Here's the thing. PUA--whatever it might be, when I really think about it I'm not sure I can define it or even if there really is such a thing--is a value-neutral tactic. You can either use the stuff you learn to improve your dating life and your relationships with women, or you could use the stuff for evil and do a lot of harm. I WILL say this though. I really believe that guys will do well to understand how women really work. Not the "strawberry-gumdrops" version but the real deal. Just as women will do well to understand how men really work. (Overgeneralization Police: Yes I get that we are all individuals. But there are patterns in human behavior--which is why we have a field of psychology--and there are patterns of female behavior and there are patterns of male behavior.)

 

A few women on here illustrate what I am talking about quite well. They passed up decent guys to be with someone who was a trainwreck. Why? Probably because the trainwreck was able to affect them emotionally in ways that the decent guys they met could not. If you're a decent guy who doesn't get how to get women to respond emotionally to you, dating is going to be a rough ride for you.

 

That said, I still see how women have an aversion to PUA. Guys, if you can't see it, I am thinking right now of the story of a "female PUA" who used Match to save on her food bill. She worked it so that for at least a few months, she had something like 5 dinner dates a week paid for by the guy (mostly first dates), so she didn't have to buy as many groceries. [Then she ended up with a co-worker of hers so she didn't end up with any of her suitors on Match.] Was what she did ethical? When I read the story I was pissed on a gut level. I still feel on some level that what she did was not cool. Thing is though, she didn't force anyone to buy her anything. She simply plied our male tendencies--desperation (especially online), chivalry, ect--to get socially clueless well-off dudes to "put out" for her with their wallets. Was what she was doing unethical? Maybe she accepted the date with the guy because she thought she could be interested. Everyone's looking for true love, but meanwhile, enjoy the free meals and brag to your friends about how sweet you've got it in the meanwhile, right?

Edited December 3, 2012 by Imajerk17

[mickleb]

Well, OK, if we are limited to yes and no, then within the strict parameters you have set up for the question, would answer "yes," to "Is the primary aim of PUA for men to get sex?"

 

Okay. So, if there was an industry built in a similar way to PUA for women (with women-only forums, coaching, videos on You Tube etc) that claimed to offer results-based strategies on how to get a husband, what would you think about it?

[Imajerk17]

Okay. So, if there was an industry built in a similar way to PUA for women (with women-only forums, coaching, videos on You Tube etc) that claimed to offer results-based strategies on how to get a husband, what would you think about it?

 

 

Actually there is. (Or at least something close enough to it...)

 

--"The Rules".

 

--Rori Raye.

 

--Glamour, Cosmopolitan, ect.

 

--Free coaching from your 4 closest friends whenever you're not sure what to do with regards to a guy.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Imajerk17

[Under The Radar]

These threads that have PUA as a topic can always be counted on to liven the party at LS.

 

Here's the thing. PUA--whatever it might be, when I really think about it I'm not sure I can define it or even if there really is such a thing--is a value-neutral tactic. You can either use the stuff you learn to improve your dating life and your relationships with women, or you could use the stuff for evil and do a lot of harm. I WILL say this though. I really believe that guys will do well to understand how women really work. Not the "strawberry-gumdrops" version but the real deal. Just as women will do well to understand how men really work. (Overgeneralization Police: Yes I get that we are all individuals. But there are patterns in human behavior--which is why we have a field of psychology--and there are patterns of female behavior and there are patterns of male behavior.)

 

A few women on here illustrate what I am talking about quite well. They passed up decent guys to be with someone who was a trainwreck. Why? Probably because the trainwreck was able to affect them emotionally in ways that the decent guys they met could not. If you're a decent guy who doesn't get how to get women to respond emotionally to you, dating is going to be a rough ride for you.

 

That said, I still see how women have an aversion to PUA. Guys, if you can't see it, I am thinking right now of the story of a "female PUA" who used Match to save on her food bill. She worked it so that for at least a few months, she had something like 5 dinner dates a week paid for by the guy (mostly first dates), so she didn't have to buy as many groceries. [Then she ended up with a co-worker of hers so she didn't end up with any of her suitors on Match.] Was what she did ethical? When I read the story I was pissed on a gut level. I still feel on some level that what she did was not cool. Thing is though, she didn't force anyone to buy her anything. She simply plied our male tendencies--desperation (especially online), chivalry, ect--to get socially clueless well-off dudes to "put out" for her with their wallets. Was what she was doing unethical? Maybe she accepted the date with the guy because she thought she could be interested. Everyone's looking for true love, but meanwhile, enjoy the free meals and brag to your friends about how sweet you've got it in the meanwhile, right?

 

 

Was what she did unethical? Well, everyone has their own "Code of Ethics" so to say. I don't stand on a soapbox and shout to the world that MY "Right and Wrong Principles" are THE correct ones.

 

However, that being said, she's operating very closely to violating MY "Standard Operating Morality Procedures".

 

Short answer: She's a certifiable bitch .

[dasein]

Okay. So, if there was an industry built in a similar way to PUA for women (with women-only forums, coaching, videos on You Tube etc) that claimed to offer results-based strategies on how to get a husband, what would you think about it?

 

Agree with imajerk, you are describing a much broader, currently existing industry with many facets, relationship books, female mags. But sure would think it's fine, better than $500 pairs of shoes or bags. Would also criticize specifics of it such as "The Rules" as opposed to throwing the whole lot into a bag of "WGH" or "women getting husbands" or whatever acronym was chosen to describe it. Frankly, what you are describing is so huge and broad based now that describing it with a single acronym would be problematic.

 

PUA seems easier to get a big handle on because it is one of the original internet based businessess, back to usenet actually, and has remained on the internet for the most part as it grew as the net did, and in tune with the proliferation of birth control. The women's industry you are describing is at least as old as "Modern Bride" magazine, which wiki tells me goes back to 1934, and has always been a predominantly print industry because that's where it started.

 

You thinking of a net based industry for women? Might make an interesting business plan.

[mickleb]

Actually there is.

 

--"The Rules".

 

--Rori Raye.

 

--Glamour, Cosmopolitan, ect.

 

--Free coaching from your 4 closest friends whenever you're not sure what to do with regards to a guy.

 

It does seem that you and Taramere are losing points to dasein when it comes to "logic" and so you are trying to make it up via ad hominem digs and spinning off-topic.

 

Okay, I'll agree with you on The Rules. Glamour and Cosmopolitan would equate to stuff like GQ and FHM (would you include those in the PUA industry?) Rori Raye I've never heard of but I'll Google... Okay, let's include her. Can you name at least a dozen others like her, or someone whose website provides a forum for women? I'm afraid I must exclude the four friends, though, as men have friends too, surely?

 

And the second part of the question is: How do you feel about the above (that are comparable to the PUA industry?)

 

Can you explain where I have made an hominem dig at anyone here? I have tried to be very courteous with my questioning, and have no intention of belittling anyone at all. I am slightly offended by your accusation, in honesty, Ima but nevermind.

 

In response to your point that my posts have been off-topic, I will agree. But anyone who hasn't directly addressed Hokie's response to his PUA induction has been off-topic. Isn't that about 95% of this thread?

[Imajerk17]

Okay, I'll agree with you on The Rules. Glamour and Cosmopolitan would equate to stuff like GQ and FHM (would you include those in the PUA industry?) Rori Raye I've never heard of but I'll Google... Okay, let's include her. Can you name at least a dozen others like her, or someone whose website provides a forum for women? I'm afraid I must exclude the four friends, though, as men have friends too, surely?

 

Uhh actually we don't. We don't run everything by our guy friends. Goes against our maxim about not asking for help or asking for directions.

 

Men's Health, by the way, has included HORRIBLE advice such as how to jump through her hoops. (Most of the dating advice given in those magazines was written by women!)

 

 

 

 

,And the second part of the question is: How do you feel about the above (that are comparable to the PUA industry?)

 

I think most of it is harmless. I draw the line at the advice telling women to accept dates when they aren't really available to light a fire under their boyfriend.

 

Can you explain where I have made an hominem dig at anyone here? I have tried to be very courteous with my questioning, and have no intention of belittling anyone at all. I am slightly offended by your accusation, in honesty, Ima but nevermind.

 

You are right, and I apologize about saying you made ad hominem remarks. I had re-editted my post. I was thinking of taramere's post a few pages back when I wrote that.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Imajerk17

[mickleb]

Agree with imajerk, you are describing a much broader, currently existing industry with many facets, relationship books, female mags. But sure would think it's fine, better than $500 pairs of shoes or bags. Would also criticize specifics of it such as "The Rules" as opposed to throwing the whole lot into a bag of "WGH" or "women getting husbands" or whatever acronym was chosen to describe it. Frankly, what you are describing is so huge and broad based now that describing it with a single acronym would be problematic.

 

PUA seems easier to get a big handle on because it is one of the original internet based businessess, back to usenet actually, and has remained on the internet for the most part as it grew as the net did, and in tune with the proliferation of birth control. The women's industry you are describing is at least as old as "Modern Bride" magazine, which wiki tells me goes back to 1934, and has always been a predominantly print industry because that's where it started.

 

You thinking of a net based industry for women? Might make an interesting business plan.

 

Okay, so this is where the misconceptions come in? Because women have various sources they can go to if they want some advice on how to get a ring on it, and men have had a label on their industry since it began?

 

As other women have stated, I don't think many of us are upset about the idea of guys getting advice on how to be attractive to women. And I don't think too many men would get upset about women learning about how to be attractive to men, either.

 

I do think that women get uncomfortable about books that say 'I'll tell you how you can have sex with women', and I do think men dislike books that say 'I'll tell you how to get a man to marry you'. I think that's a pretty natural response. The instinct is to say 'What a load of BS'. I do think guys would feel a little irritated by a proliferation forums aimed specifically at women, which gave the same advice.

 

I have no intention to start one myself, although I'm sure a huge amount of money could be made from it. I love this site, which aims to help both men and women to be more successful in their relationships, and wish that both genders felt more comfortable communicating directly with each other. I think shared-sex communication, with no commercial agenda, is likely to be much more successful in producing positive outcomes for all involved.

 

But that's just me.

[Under The Radar]

Other than my first time about 4 years ago which turned out to be a ONS, I've never had casual sex that wasn't in furtherance of dating or a relationship. So I honestly don't know how I'd feel about it. I don't know what I don't know. And for a while now, I've felt incomplete without having had that experience. You're right, I think deep down, I'm a relationship kind of guy. But I feel like my relationships do suffer because I didn't have that casual experience that many, if not all, of my peers have had.

 

 

Maybe the reason you feel incomplete, has less to do with casual sex exploits, and more to do with not finding the "right" girl for you? I have a feeling that if you fell in love with the "right" girl the relationship would NOT suffer regardless of the "PUA Experience".

[USMCHokie]

You started the thread with the apparent intent of making a change. Have now read one book. You are effectively at the point of a guy who has never been to a gym who read a single good workout book by Ahnuld:laugh:. Are you going to write a workout plan and actually go to the gym? If you want change in results and your life, that is what you must do. I spent ten years philosophizing about gaining control of my sex life before doing anything about it. Didn't have anyone to motivate me, so wasted lots of precious time in "contemplation." Please avoid my mistake.

 

Wow, didn't expect to wake up to 100+ posts on this one...

 

Anyway, I have about 10 months left on a deployment, so I'll have a bit of time in contemplation...

[mickleb]

Uhh actually we don't. We don't run everything by our guy friends. Goes against our maxim about not asking for help or asking for directions.

 

But surely, getting laid is worth breaking the maxim for?

 

Men's Health, by the way, has included HORRIBLE advice such as how to jump through her hoops. (Most of the dating advice given in those magazines was written by women!)

 

So would most guys agree that men's magazines are a significant part of the PUA industry? This, in itself, I think makes it somehow less scary for women. We know there are a billion magazines out there for us (and we also know how much crap most of them espouse!) If we were comparing men's mags and women's mags, I think most women would see them as primarily aimed at younger men, a bit of escapism from the day-to-day and containing the odd nugget of useful info.

 

I think most of it is harmless. I draw the line at the advice telling women to accept dates when they aren't really available to light a fire under their boyfriend.

 

I do apologise again. What does the 'light a fire' bit mean?

 

You are right, and I apologize about saying you made ad hominem remarks. I had re-editted my post. I was thinking of taramere's post a few pages back when I wrote that.

 

Thank you. Although, in defence of Taramere, I can see why she got the impression that sexism was abound in PUA. Unfortunately, most of the stuff us ladies get to hear about it does sound dodgy to us. The Rules is, IMO, sexist crap, so I wouldn't be surprised if other guys found it distasteful.

 

In response to the 'female PUA' you wrote about, btw, YES her behaviour is immoral! I sincerely hope no women on here would attempt to defend it.

Edited December 3, 2012 by mickleb

[Tara247]

No one is a victim if the sex was consensual.

 

How consensual is it really if he had to lie and play tricks to get it?

 

 

 

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.[/quoteD]

 

Granted, I never saw getting dates as that big of a problem for the average guy. What I mean by average is reasonably attractive, clean, has a job, decent morals and values.

 

 

 

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.

 

You're tricking a woman to get laid. Again, what you are doing is disgusting.

 

 

 

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

 

I grew up very sheltered, so I would say that I fell for some, not a lot.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Tara247

[threebyfate]

One of the easiest things in life to attain is NSA sex, whether you're a man or a woman. To need PUA is really pathetic, much like an adult needing instruction on how to use a toilet and then finding instructions on how to take a crap without needing to waste time and money on toilet paper. While it's possible to avoid using toilet paper, you'll still smell and lack hygiene. Now apply this analogy to the concept of PUA.

[dasein]

Okay, so this is where the misconceptions come in? Because women have various sources they can go to if they want some advice on how to get a ring on it, and men have had a label on their industry since it began?

 

Yes, partially as to the singular label. No, though, it isn't just "sources," but an industry, despite, like PUA, not findable in any industry listing or SIC codes, one much older and larger than PUA, just conducted mostly via print media, books and magazines.

 

I do think that women get uncomfortable about books that say 'I'll tell you how you can have sex with women', and I do think men dislike books that say 'I'll tell you how to get a man to marry you'.

 

"Uncomfortable" doesn't really sum up the types of vitriolic, hostile reactions contained in these PUA discussion threads fairly, does it?

 

And no, other than men taking issue with -specific- marriage advice such as what is contained in "The Rules," for example, I don't see any vitriol at all directed against women seeking marriage, convincing their man to marry. I think men innately tend to depersonalize such things, and so find them less offensive.

 

But we are talking apples and oranges. Sex is something many women want to do, just need persuasion. Surely women are not so manipulable that they can be hypnotized into having sex... they want to, and IME enjoy it more when we seduce them. This is old hat, ancient even. Kierkegaard wrote "The Seducer's Diary" in 1843 (though it was not intended as a PUA manual, but part of an ethical treatise) Marriage, though, is a lifetime commitment. So manipulation towards sex may be objectionable, but does it really even compare to manipulation towards marriage? And to preempt and reiterate, no PUA counsels dishonesty. That's the -old- way, and won't sell to boot. No one needs to buy "lying class," that's free.

 

I think that's a pretty natural response. The instinct is to say 'What a load of BS'. I do think guys would feel a little irritated by a proliferation forums aimed specifically at women, which gave the same advice.

 

I disagree, and don't think many men would care, certainly not to the extent of repeating vehement, rigid denouncements and excoriations over and over regardless of any reasoning presented to the contrary.

 

I think shared-sex communication, with no commercial agenda, is likely to be much more successful in producing positive outcomes for all involved.

 

But that's just me.

 

I feel the same, or would post on a PUA forum where I might build a foundation to sell all my incredibly sage dating advice instead of giving it away here for free.

[Failboy]

One of the easiest things in life to attain is NSA sex, whether you're a man or a woman. To need PUA is really pathetic, much like an adult needing instruction on how to use a toilet and then finding instructions on how to take a crap without needing to waste time and money on toilet paper. While it's possible to avoid using toilet paper, you'll still smell and lack hygiene. Now apply this analogy to the concept of PUA.

 

 

That is where many women are horrendously wrong.

 

Just because it is very easy for you, doesn't make it so for men. It is very hard for me, and I am far from being a disgusting or stupid person.

[ThaWholigan]

One of the easiest things in life to attain is NSA sex, whether you're a man or a woman. To need PUA is really pathetic, much like an adult needing instruction on how to use a toilet and then finding instructions on how to take a crap without needing to waste time and money on toilet paper. While it's possible to avoid using toilet paper, you'll still smell and lack hygiene. Now apply this analogy to the concept of PUA.

You would be surprised how difficult some find it

 

It's pretty ironic though.

 

I used PUA to give me the impetus to talk to women better, filtered out the BS and managed to become more comfortable being myself around women as a result.

 

Yet, I never even remotely used anything close to PUA-related on the two girls I eventually slept with.

[threebyfate]

Yet, I never even remotely used anything close to PUA-related on the two girls I eventually slept with.

All it took was to relax and show who you are, which for most men, would be that they're decent and interesting human beings. With this in mind, I will admit that the guys who don't bother with self-improvement, bitching and whining about women, aren't going to have much of anything to reveal.

[Failboy]

All it took was to relax and show who you are, which for most men, would be that they're decent and interesting human beings. With this in mind, I will admit that the guys who don't bother with self-improvement, bitching and whining about women, aren't going to have much of anything to reveal.

 

Wait a second, why would a dude need self-improvement if it was as easy as going to the toilet? Why would a dude have so many bad failure experiences regarding something so easy that those experiences would turn him into a bitter man who whines about women?

 

That is illogical. If it was as easy as you claim it was, the world would be not the way it is.

[fortyninethousand322]

All it took was to relax and show who you are, which for most men, would be that they're decent and interesting human beings. With this in mind, I will admit that the guys who don't bother with self-improvement, bitching and whining about women, aren't going to have much of anything to reveal.

 

I would argue that for some PUA is a kind of self improvement. Learning how to relax and be fun and playful around women.

 

It's very similar to athletes who use sports psychologists. You would think that playing a kids game is easy, but for some they need a little extra push and help.

[threebyfate]

If it was as easy as you claim it was, the world would be not the way it is.

The world is as easy as I claim. Human connections have been around since time began where the majority don't really have any problems connecting with others. Most people have something to offer without needing to resort to deceitful methodologies. If you're finding difficulty, reconsider your world view. There's much to be said about perceptions of glass half full or half empty where half full can result in behaviours that create self-prophesized disasters.

 

Instead of relying on parlour tricks, consider honest self-improvement and socializing with as many people as possible. In socialization, not only can people learn social cues, they can also improve the size of their dating pool.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Women dont neeed this stuff because they dont have to do the peacocking.

 

I think that in our species, in western cultures, it is generally women who put on more visual displays of their sexuality than men do - more "peacocking," if that were a real word.

 

I was a sales person for many years; a successful one. I liken some PUA to books and seminars marketed towards would-be salespeople who were not coming to it naturally. But then there is the rest of PUA which puts me in mind of sleazy, sheisterish, dishonest sales techniques aimed at very short term (and short sighted) sales goals. This is the stuff that gives used car salesmen (and most PUA proponents on the Internet, at least) a bad name.

[fortyninethousand322]

The world is as easy as I claim. Human connections have been around since time began where the majority don't really have any problems connecting with others. Most people have something to offer without needing to resort to deceitful methodologies. If you're finding difficulty, reconsider your world view. There's much to be said about perceptions of glass half full or half empty where half full can result in behaviours that create self-prophesized disasters.

 

Instead of relying on parlour tricks, consider honest self-improvement and socializing with as many people as possible. In socialization, not only can people learn social cues, they can also improve the size of their dating pool.

 

This is where you're wrong. Most of the people who in the past didn't need "parlour tricks" either lived in a world where they were too poor to live past 30 or so and thus didn't really have the time to bother with the mating dance as they were literally fighting for their survival, or they were rich enough to buy a bride in a world that facilitated such transactions.

 

We simply live in such an advance society that our social rejects are sticking around and living like regular folks.

[TheBigQuestion]

 

That said, I still see how women have an aversion to PUA. Guys, if you can't see it, I am thinking right now of the story of a "female PUA" who used Match to save on her food bill. She worked it so that for at least a few months, she had something like 5 dinner dates a week paid for by the guy (mostly first dates), so she didn't have to buy as many groceries. [Then she ended up with a co-worker of hers so she didn't end up with any of her suitors on Match.] Was what she did ethical? When I read the story I was pissed on a gut level. I still feel on some level that what she did was not cool. Thing is though, she didn't force anyone to buy her anything. She simply plied our male tendencies--desperation (especially online), chivalry, ect--to get socially clueless well-off dudes to "put out" for her with their wallets. Was what she was doing unethical? Maybe she accepted the date with the guy because she thought she could be interested. Everyone's looking for true love, but meanwhile, enjoy the free meals and brag to your friends about how sweet you've got it in the meanwhile, right?

 

This is crappy behavior without a doubt. However, PUA on the whole is not really the same thing at all. Women are right to feel pissed off in a situation equivalent to the one you just described, but that equivalent is not PUA.

 

And on a somewhat separate note, I'm really waiting to be enlightened as to the "lies" and "deception" in PUA. Although I'm not a PUA and don't claim to be an expert, I've read more about it than most people here, and I'm yet to see any PUA writing that encourages flat out lying to women. In fact, most of them outright condemn it because of how badly it can backfire.