Anyhow, taking that as the case..
I totally agree that sex isn't always the best end for all concerned (If we could all be happy, fulfulled asexuals and somehow manage to reproduce, I'm absolutely for that. However I also recognize that there are many,many,many people who would disagree with me — and maybe they have some valid points to make there).
As for further comments, I'll make them later.. my brain is beginning to wind down, it's 8.20pm here.
'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'8.20 Pm and your already tired? Get back up you lazy bastard
And its not neccesarily even LOVE, which is what I have been trying to explain, its the fact that "you" (generic you will now be in quotes) are essentially saying "manipulate people for personal gain".
I have no strong feelings towards "love" as oft represented, but can you perhaps see why people would be a little less than impressed with that idea? Not least because "you" are claiming that everyone who doesn't do stuff in that particular way is some form of idiot.
As a minor question, why in the name of Baal do people seem to have all these "you deserve this" sentiments across the PUA community. Nobody deserves ANYTHING, in general self-respect must be acquired through working at something you love and not feeling defeated by it. To just go "I deserve this" and repeat it strikes me as kind of grotesque.
"Of course I can see why people react to it that way - I said on the first page of this thread that "the opposition towards [PUA] seems to stem from the basic human desire to see love as something magical and inexplicable" - I just think that it's not a completely rational reaction."
That's bullshit. I believe in casual sex, I just don't believe that PUA is an acceptable way of procuring it. Its interpretation of female sexuality, for one, leaves a lot to be desired. The main problem, though, is bringing - by virtue of playing upon a person's insecurities - emotions into something that should be limited to sex.
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
Agreed. The biggest issue I've always had with the whole PUA thing is that it seems to treat women like... commodities, or vending machines for sex (or relationships), rather than people. For something that's designed at making men more appealing to women, there is absurdly little focus spent on actually trying to understand women.
Out of sheer curiosity, are there any PU As who offer advice for non-heterosexual picking up? Like, are there gay PUA (Or female PU As)?
The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.Well, a lot of PUA is lies to children
. But if it works better than the alternatives, it can still offer something of value. As for its interpretation of female sexuality, I believe I already mentioned in passing that much of it is awfully gender-normative, but that does not invalidate the concept in a world where the majority of people, or at least the largest minority of people, believe in those same normative ideas.
Emotions are involved in most everything we do, so I find that to be a nonsensical objection. And in any case, "playing upon a person's insecurities" hardly constitutes the full body of PUA teachings.
![]()
![]()
![]()
You is who? ('generic you' doesn't seem to be what you really mean. Do you mean 'generic PUA'?)
![]()
Well I've only heard of one lesbian PUA.. who specialized in seducing straight women over .. 3 months, or thereabouts? Kind of a different thing, but somewhat similar too.
edited 30th Aug '11 6:09:29 AM by SavageOrange
'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'"you" as in Pu A and MB.
I don't know I am afraid mate, check some of the "help" threads at the top of the forum guide.
edited 30th Aug '11 6:03:33 AM by JosefBugman
It's a given that emotions are involved in everything, and that should really have gone without saying. Those specific emotions that this joke of a mating dance might encite in a woman, however, aren't necessary to sex, and are better absent from casual sex encounters altogether.
Basically, my concern is that the type of woman who would fall for this shit is the kind who isn't looking for casual sex.
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?People also like being cheated on, in certain ways, as long as they don't realize they are being cheated on (because hey, suddenly your SO is happy all of a sudden!). That doesn't make it moral to cheat (though it might make it moral to consentually open up your relationship).
The fuck? No that is not my objection, stop making up straw opponents in your head.
I have no problem with guys picking up women (lay sense), in bars, with full knowledge of everything they are doing. I just have a problem with them using PUA techniques to do it. Because the techniques themselves are for the purpose of tricking women into accepting sex they would otherwise refuse.
If you can't get a "yes" from a woman with an honest approach you should not try to force one out of her.
Oh, and your ASIP clip reminded me of another ASIP clip:
You'll note that the neither of the posts in which the quoted passage is found was a response to you, and the first was written before you were present in the thread at all. Not everything I do or say is about you, Mr. Ego Man!
And what, precisely, is the difference between picking someone up in the lay sense and picking someone up in the PUA sense, other than that you choose to use words like "trick" or "coerce" for the latter?
Saying that PUA techniques "are for the purpose of tricking women into accepting sex they would otherwise refuse" does not answer the question, because anything you can do that makes someone interested in having sex with you by definition creates a "yes" where there would otherwise have been a "no".
Somehow I guessed that was coming. Either that or the D.E.N.N.I.S. System.
Of course, even the problem with The Implication isn't that it's manipulative, it's that it has the potential to be harmful. Two different things here, once again.
"Not everything I do or say is about you, Mr. Ego Man!"
Mostly Benign is trying to pick up Black Humor.
edited 30th Aug '11 1:18:57 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?I find it vaguely interesting that Black Humor feels the need to get on my case for unfavorably judging feminists by the people I see doing it, yet he feels free to judge PUA by the same metric.
But that's off topic, so I'm going back to lurking.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianUm, feminists' defining characteristic is working towards female economic and political equality, whereas pick-up artists are defined by their objectification of women. Surely you perceive how one lends itself to negative generalization while the other one does not?
edited 30th Aug '11 1:18:35 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?No, not automatically. Only if your end goal is sex, and not the girl itself.
I.e., if you meet someone and want to fuck them, great, do your best. If you go out to get laid, and approach women because, hey, she'll do, I'm going to question your motives and more likely than not, based on my experience with male acquaintances who act like this, pre-judge you as a scumbag.
Admittedly, it might be hard to differentiate the two at a certain point, but how indiscriminate pick-up artists tend to be indicates more of the latter than the former.
edited 30th Aug '11 1:51:30 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?What can I say, I just feel like there's been this Slap-Slap-Kiss thing building between us.
No, that isn't what I'm suggesting. PUA, by virtue of their self-professed mission, does privilege sex as an aim over meeting and forming relationships, short-lived or otherwise, with actual women. Stop trying to derail this into a bullshit rant about feminism.
edited 30th Aug '11 2:02:49 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

@Bugman:
I wasn't making a normative statement of any kind in that particular post. But yes, I would tend to agree with Savage Orange on this one.
Of course I can see why people react to it that way - I said on the first page of this thread that "the opposition towards [PUA] seems to stem from the basic human desire to see love as something magical and inexplicable" - I just think that it's not a completely rational reaction.
@Savage:
Yes, I completely agree with everything you said there. Also, I'd like to add that it is my impression that most of the vocal critics of PUA are simply people in the third stage of that process* who have convinced themselves that they never had to go through steps one and two - likely either because they went through them very early in their lives, in imperceptibly small increments, or both.
As such, I tend to find many of their arguments to be distasteful displays of privilege.
edited 30th Aug '11 3:39:47 AM by MostlyBenign