Pick Up Arts: The causes of the fall, the hopes of redemption

An awful comparison I could make, is probably something like the KKK. "Stop strawmanning, Aszur! You stop taking cheap shots at awful groups! What is next? Hitler?"

Bear with me for a little. There is plenty other comparisons. But the KKK, Religious cults (And I DO mean cyanide laced drink chugging ones), and other things take advantage of the human dire need to socialize...while also seeing the promotion of some nasty little ideas.

Ever read testaments by people who used to belong to the Mormon Church in Utah? If you did not belong to the Mormon church you were effectively ostracized from the only community there.

Now, thanks to the internet, we have this amazing option of not even ever being challenged in our thoughts. We just have to go online and we will find someone who agrees with us because they, too, never were challenged in their thoughts. And they reciprocate these thoughts against each other.

It is a mental, ideological masturbation that translates to a grotesquely deformed way of thinking, and a safe haven that will never, ever challenge those thoughts. The internet, like secluded cities in Utah, are secluded and this never have to interact with anyone else that they choose not to.

So they are never challenged. They suffer no consequences. They suffer no repercussions. They can just go back to their little shelter and hide from the pain and suffering of someone telling them "no" or "you are wrong"...and receive reinforcement. Hear from someone else "No dude. THEY are wrong, YOU are right! They have yet to swallow the red pill/discover god/ are not blessed/ are dumb!"

It is why it is a worthy exercise to keep challenging what you take for granted.

In Reddit, replace God with Atheism and you're good to go (because all religious people are crazy deluded people, hahaha)^note The folowing comment is not meant to be disrespectful to most atheist folks who are pretty decent, same as with most [insert religion] folks.

edited 17th Jun '15 8:08:54 AM by Quag15

I guess you can replace it with anything, really. :P I've seen that attitude by vegetarians, vegans, meat-eaters, pacifist people, militaristic people, nationalists, globalists, feminists, MR As...

I completely agree with Azsur's idea that such insulated communities are basically the start of all evil, at least the kind of evil that is born from decent ideals.

edited 17th Jun '15 8:34:16 AM by Cozzer

The moral of the story is, "Extremism is bad, yo."

Well. I am not saing that they are the source of all evil. technically, wouldn't we be a sheltered community as well, here in TV Tropes?

My point is merely to say that it behooves us to question our thoughts and assumptions every once in a while.

I mean. Not all statements can be fully right. Or fully wrong. Not even this one.

We're not united by a philosophy, though. Allow me to demonstrate.

The death penalty is justifiable, MRAs are a hate group, Patriarchal values have produced a society that treats women like minorities, white Christian heterosexual men need to learn to check their privilege, a gay marriage is no more of "an attack on the institution of marriage" than my mom's fifth straight marriage, and there is no one faith that is right for everyone; everyone must find their own path to the deity or deities that will support them.

These are all opinions I have expressed in various threads here in the OTC. How many people on TvTropes agree 100% with everything I just said? I bet you could count the number on one hand. In the kind of communities we're talking about, however, the diversity of opinion is much smaller.

What Azur is alluding to, I think, are the well known and documented psychological effects of cult groups. Joining a cult confers psychological benefits to their members, which should be unsurprising, because otherwise why would anyone join them? These benefits include group validation of the self, protection from self-doubt and anxiety, access to social support, sometimes extensive, and a clear social and cultural structure to fit into. TV Tropes does not fit the definition of a cult, nor do most mainstream religions, but extremist groups often do.

The first step toward freeing oneself from the constraints imposed by cults on their members is the ability to doubt one's beliefs.

Not in thematic, no. But in certain spaces it can happen. I think, however, such exemplification would be out of context.

To return to the topic though, my point is that the more elaborate our means of communications are, the less we seem to be actually able to confront negative traits. People can live quite isolated, even when surrounded by people and holding a very public job, it seems.

How dare you accuse me of saying anything logical and sensible.

edited 17th Jun '15 4:09:55 PM by Aszur

Thing is nobody is just a Troper, we all have meat space lives, even within our sub communicates that do all agree on a philosophy people are forced to deal with people outside the group with varying beliefs.

That's the thing, we don't all agree with each other and even if we did we tend to have lives outside of here with folks who do disagree. We're not an insular community because we don't demand exclusivity. A lot of cults and hate groups very deliberately try and destroy all relationships an other support groups that you have beyond them.

Also, this place is sort of built on questioning assumptions. Very hard to make any cool-aid here, let alone drink it.

To get (marginally) back on topic ... is there anything in PUA "philosophy" that would be beneficial to someone looking for a long-term relationship? Aside from the obvious "build your self-confidence enough to ask" that we've already agreed is rather standard in all dating advice.

I still think there is value to be found in the basic techniques if the end result is merely to lead women to say yes to a date rather than sex. You have to have the building blocks of chemistry or you'll never get anywhere, but a date setting encourages more honesty.

I think Beholderess answered that question: Once you take away anything you would find in any esteem-building, social skills focused program, there isnt enough positive stuff left to give a name to.

I think the problem with PUA is that they take a lot of things that do make sense if you're joking and play them dead straight.

I mean, take "nagging" or whatever they call it. It's, like, the evil brother of playful teasing. Being able to joke at each other's expense during a conversation shows confidence both in oneself and in each other, because you trust that the other party doesn't mean it. Then the PUA remove the light-hearted aspect and turn it into a cartoonishly villainous battle for "psychological dominance" or such crap. So they hurt everybody: women, who need to be more careful when flirting because maybe the other party is not happily joking but is trying to put them down; themselves, because it's not a sustainable way to think in the long-term; other men who are not confident about flirting, because they see the PUA "nagging" bullshit and become scared that any teasing at all is evilbadwrong.

So yeah, the basic things do make sense, as long as you remove all the "wannabe-alpha-male" dominance bullshit.

edited 17th Jun '15 11:29:43 PM by Cozzer

Nagging...

But even 'leading' (not a fan of that word being used) women to say yes to a date doesn't actually require much, it equines you to be aproching a women who connects with you and knows you, alongside this it requires the basic self confidence and such stuff.

I've asked three differnet women on dates so my expeirance is limited but it's not hard, find a women who wants to go on a date with you (because you've already established a connections with them and they like you romantically) and ask with confidence. If they say no you've obviously not got step 1 right, that happens so move on and try and find a women who does want to go on a date with you.

The problem is that the persons who use manipulative tactics are generally scared shitless of rejection, and rather than building up the confidence to accept a "no" for an answer they'll do whatever they can to prevent it or get around it. :P

...since when?

Part of the reason seemingly great relationships sour is because people put on their best face during courtship, and that face may not accurate reflect who they are.

edited 18th Jun '15 7:53:00 AM by TobiasDrake

Rather, a date setting "allows" for more honesty. When you *need* to put your best, possibly-not-genuine, face on is in that first impression phase. I'm not talking about a Jekyll and Hyde transition between them or anything, just that you have to meet certain expectations when you make a first impression that may not reflect everything you are, but without them, you're not getting anywhere.

I still disagree with that assertion. What a social situation "allows" for is dependent on the intent of the situation. The purpose of a date is to impress. People try to put their best selves forward in order to secure a possibility of further dates.

Typically, if someone isn't making an effort to thrill the other party during a date, it's because they've made up their mind that there won't be further dates. It's not that different from the first impression; it's the same thing but extended. If the person they met was a lie, then the person on the date has to be a bigger, longer lie.

But here's my question: why does a date even need to be the intention of a first impression at all? A dishonest first impression may lead to a dishonest first date, but even if an honest first impression doesn't lead to an honest first date, it can still lead to a pretty spectacular honest friendship.

This is ultimately the problem: whether the PUA is looking for a date or sex, the woman is still being treated as a prize to be won, an achievement to be unlocked, a goal to be obtained. Consent is still being treated like an obstacle to overcome, and communication is being opened with a deliberate result that the PUA is attempting to navigate around the woman's psychology until he arrives in the endzone of whatever target he has in mind.

edited 18th Jun '15 11:52:15 AM by TobiasDrake

I find a date good for allowing the two people to see how well they work together in a romantic setting.

I'll be frank: there was zero chemistry between my wife and me on our first date, but we managed to bond over shared life experiences, enough to try again at least. This November will be our 14th anniversary. Sometimes all it takes is the willingness from both parties to push through the initial barriers.

edited 18th Jun '15 12:24:32 PM by Fighteer

There is a difference between trying to show your best side and trying to show a side that you do not have. And the "showing your best side" thing happens, more or less subconsciously, in every first interaction you have with anyone, not only on dates.

I mean, it's like... if during your first date you talk about the coolest thing you did, that's fine. It's not a lie just because you don't do that coolest thing every day. If you make up some cool thing you didn't do, though, that's manipulation territory.

Exactly.