I think a big part of the problem of approaching someone is you don't know what they want or are looking for in the first place.
There should be a way to let everyone know, unobtrusively, whether one is looking for a romantic relationship that does or does not include sex, or just looking for sex, or not looking for anything at all. And let's toss in information about gender preferences as well.
In short, a way to check in advance whether "yes, I'm in the market for this, and we are relevant to our mutual interests".
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."I find it very disturbing that there is such a presumption that trying to getting opposite sex's attention = cooing one into procreate. While I do not deny that people do use pick-up arts for such purpose, it doesn't have to be. To put it into simpler words, if you are trying to get a girl to pay attention to you, you are attempting to pick her up. That means, I do use my own pick-up arts for legitimate purposes, such as making friends without considering possibility of romance.
That sounded like the problem of the pick-up arts is more of a linguistic/semantic issue for me. After all, picking up living beings shouldn't bear the same meaning as picking up objects.
![]()
What you have said, as far as I known, is part of the pick-up arts itself. That makes me wonder what is exactly the point(s) that I have missed.
edited 11th Jun '15 8:17:34 AM by murazrai
I mentioned this before in another thread, but the very name of Pick-Up Art demonstrates the core problem with it.
You don't pick up people. You pick up objects. You pick up your phone. You pick up your game controller. You pick up your car keys.
You meet people. You talk to people. You socialize with people. You don't pick them up, like they're a toy you're intending to play with.
edited 11th Jun '15 8:01:22 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Yeah, it's interesting to see how some of the people in here do not appear to get the point.
The problem with hanging a sign over one's head indicating availability is that a person, male or female, isnt intending to be available to anyone. Whether or not they want to be approached depends upon who they think you are. First impressions are "negotiated" subconsciously in the first few seconds two people enter into each other's presence. Clothes, posture, your apparent relationship to other people in the room, facial expression, and lots of other things go into it. The whole point is not to fool someone, but to accurately communicate that the two of you have something important in common. If the goal is an authentic relationship of some kind, it's critical that the initial impression you make be accurate. That's why, if you feel you are not making a good impression on the kind of people you want to meet, then first objectively assess what kind of impression you are making (by asking some people) and make sure that you arent concealing your true self by creating masks for people to see; and second work on your self-concept so that you can become the kind of person someone you like would want to meet.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.I don't think it's inherently objectifying, it's just a technique to spark some initial curiosity and interest, precisely because we've already put a person in a box about 20 seconds after we meet them, and if you can shunt yourself into the "i'll give him a chance" box more often, what's the harm?
That it can be taken too far, or even was designed for that purpose, is beside the point.
The most effective way to spark a person's interest is to be an interesting person.
If you're not actually that interesting, that will become apparent eventually.
edited 11th Jun '15 9:05:08 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Ok. Listen up. This is a problem.
The mere idea that there are a firm set of behaviors of the "alpha" or "aggressive" or "animalistic" likeness, that will in any shape, form or way, appeal to the opposite sex, is firmly categorizing the opposite sex. By using the supposed alure of a stereotype, one hopes to catch another stereotype.
Rationalization of the sort of "Are you saying that if I try to attract the opposite sex, I am objectifying them?" or "If I want to attract others, this is not an inherently evil thing!" fails to see the point that you are already setting up expectations from another group that you are effectively "othering" and reducing to our own arbitrary ideas of what they are.
The idea of communication, and socializing, is that you don't come up with ans expectation of what to encounter and depend on it, but rather, that you go with good will, or the principle of bona fides, and hope, that you will have a pleasant time with the other person regardless of who or what they are...
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesThe reason looking at social interaction/relationships (be they romantic or not) like job interviews is because they are very different. With a job interview one person has the power to give a thing, they are in control and you have to satisfy their criteria, you are simply trying to alter yourself to meet their criteria, they have a thing you want and you have to convince them to give it to you.
That is a terrible way to build a relationship. Any relationship built on such a foundation is pretty much doomed. You change who you are to get a job because you need a job, not only that but you need that job that is right there. This isn't how people work, you don't need a relationship, you especially don't need a relationship with that person right there. Businesses looking for employees may be few and far between but people looking for friends or partners are bloody everywhere.
Stop trying to change yourself to become what that person wants in a friend/partner, focus on finding the person out there who already wants what you are as a friend/parter.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAs I see it, there are several potential problems with PUA
1) The methods themselves are often harmful to the women - deliberately attempting to lower their self-esteem, deliberately pushing past the boundaries and making a person uncomfortable and vulnerable etc
2) They present consent and desire of the other person as that pesky thing to get around in order to get sex
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonThis part being common enough to actually have a name: negging.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.And also, as a HR dude, lemme tell ya. Some of them are just administrators trying to play psychologists. So many, many, many, many of the methods they use for hiring are as based on human behavior and their predictability of work success as cheese is related to the Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actress
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesYou guys' approach towards job interviews perplexes me. While I make sure to show 'my best profile' at the interview, it consists on emphasizing aspects of my personality and skillset that correspond to what's needed to do the job well. Obviously, if I don't have those traits and skills in the first place, I'm not going to apply for a job. What if I succeed in getting past the interview and obtaining the job? I'm stuck at a job I'm unsuited for, and both I and my employers will have a miserable time of it! Obviously that relationship is doomed from the start! I mean, seriously, what kind of idiot is disingenuous at job interviews?
What you do is, you dress just right for the type of job and the related culture. No French Cuffs at an engineering interview, fool! Wear those on your own time! Unless you're such an incorrigible dandy or hipster that you will be wearing them often at work, that they're really tied to your identity. In that case, not wearing them counts as disingenuous, as a lie.
You bring up the skills that you have that you know they need, and the concrete anecdotes that show how you exemplified them, you get a haircut the day before, you don't come to the interview high, or exhausted, or hungover, or having slept badly... You wear clothes that fit you well, go well together, and convey the image that you want to project, but the person inside those clothes is still you.
You show them your best self, as befits their needs (as far as you know).
"There's no second chance to give a first impression."
So, when it comes to dating, similar rules apply. You may be an amazing engineer, but if you open the conversation at a layman's cocktail by talking shop, you'll just bore people. If you go to a grunge meeting, don't wear a blazer and an Ascot, for goodnes's sake, unless you absolutely have nothing more casual to wear.
Be Yourself is indeed essential. You must not pretend that you are something other than yourself to get into a relationship with people (of any kind). However, people are complex, personalities have facets, there is a relatively wide range of "yourselves" that are all entirely genuine but which are markedly different from one another. So you pick your "true self" that is most context-appropriate, and you show it in the best light possible.
Clothes that fit, are stylish (not the same thing as fashionable) and go well together help a lot. An appropriate, well-maintained haircut helps a lot. Good make-up helps a lot, if you're a girl. Good posture and good diction and good coordination. It's not about pretending to be someone you aren't, it's about not letting imperfections and mismatches and negligence get in the way of you conveying yourself with clarity.
Am I making sense to y'all?
![]()
Negging is effective, but who in their right mind would want someone liking them to be based on feeling inferior to them?
![]()
![]()
Indeed, that mentality is hugely problematic. I once went to a PUA seminar. We roleplayed seduction, the guy wearing the wig played the girl.
It was the most terrifying experience I ever had. I could feel my defenses being wormed into and leveraged and pried open, leaving me more and more naked and vulnerable. The panic and sense of being railroaded and 'seduced' got so bad, I was a hair's breath away from striking my partner in self-defense, even though all he'd been doing was being relentlessly persistent, demonstrating absolute certainty that I wanted him, and manipulating politeness and other codes to get me to kiss him.
His reaction when it was time out? A triumphant "I almost got her, you should have seen her eyes!"
My reaction was a newfound appreciation for the value of enthusiatic, mutual consent, and becoming so damn cautious cautious about being anything like that ass-hole to the point of coming across as skittish and aloof. For a while I needed abundant signs of interest to even begin to start thinking of, like, showing interest myself.
Only very recently have I begun to be a bit more easily flirty, but never persistent.
There's a problem with persistence in that some girls do want to be courted like that. My sister is one of those; by her own account, she invariably shows a Jerkass Façade to any approaching male, and only those who endure through her insults and show humour and good cheer throughout are even given a chance. But those aren't the kind of girl I'm interested in.
edited 11th Jun '15 2:11:45 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.What i'm saying is, i think, similar to what Handle is saying. You don't change yourself fundamentally to get a job, because otherwise you'll be miserable and you won't last long there anyway.
I'm seeing this as an issue of people with Type A personalities and people who lack that. If you can't fake it you're never going to get in the door most places, even places you would actually be well-suited for. You could be a terrible job hunter and it doesn't matter how skilled you are. Similarly you could be a good potential partner for someone but just not click out in social scenes and lose out before you even get in.
I'm not talking about lying to get someone who isn't right for you, i'm talking about faking certain behaviors so that you even stand a chance with someone who is right for you. Because the first-phase stuff is stupid and meaningless to the health of the relationship, and yet required for most relationships to take place.
I'll grant that i have a very near-zero track record with the ladies here, so i could just be getting back into the whole "tropers with issues injecting personal problems into arguments" thing.
Ok see I got to question whatever do you mean with "someone who is right for you".
How do you define someone who is right for you? And what makes this person more right than someone who is less "right" for you, barring the obvious cases of "He is a drug addicted mobster who would shoot me for a Klondike bar". What is the description here? I am a tad confused of where this whole thing comes from
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes...really? That's your objection to negging? That it reduces the woman's quality as a mate?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.That it's rude and unkind and manipulative goes without fucking saying, and those willing to use it know it and don't care. The argument is phrased in such a way to convince even them to stop, because I don't waste time preaching to the choir; those who already don't do it don't need convincing.
Likewise, you don't convince a manipulator to stop manipulating because manipulation is morally wrong, but because it's most likely going to be counter productive to their own interest in the long run.
I'd also add that "negging" and other forms of taunting, ribbing, and otherwise pointlessly insulting and belittling people, happens very frequently in all manner of contexts outside of 'seduction'. It took me many years to recognize my father's systematic campaign to undermine my self-esteem while making me dependent on his approval and affection for what it was, for instance. Teachers did it to me, and so did the occasional girlfriend.
Frankly, I'm somewhat offended that I have to spell out that I find such approaches despicable. It's as if I made an argument about terrorism being a somewhat ineffective way of achieving one's political goals, and having someone jump down my throat asking whether that's all that I find objectionable about the practice.
edited 11th Jun '15 2:42:09 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.When you're defending a lifestyle that, in many circles, is about the abuse, objectification, and outright victimization of women, "Abusing, objectifying, and victimizing women is bad" is something that actually does need to be said.
Most of the people in here aren't vampires, so if vampires aren't taking the time to mention that maybe eating people isn't a good course of action, we just assume they're like the other vampires.
edited 11th Jun '15 2:37:26 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.For fuck's sake, Tobias, when have I been defending any kind of lifestyle whatsoever? PUA are a set of skills, not a freaking life philosophy that consumes one's entire existence.
Heck, how would you call what I've been doing here 'defending' PUA? I've been criticizing it left and right, and bringing its flaws front and centre.
At best, I've been correcting over-generalizations and inaccuracies, and bringing a sympathetic and humane perspective, but that's not the same as letting anyone off the hook.
Now will you please get that Bias Steamroller out of the way and actually listen to what I'm saying in good faith?
edited 11th Jun '15 2:48:17 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.About the causes of the fall of the PUA thing: could it be that part of said fall was caused by a bad minority that forced women to have sex (e.g. Julien Blanc), instead of merely trying to persuade or convince women to have sex?
Or could it be that, like any movement, there is a toxic component in its... ideology/perspective/way of thinking among a slightly wider group than the mere Vocal Minority that sees a group of people through a limited lens (something which is common to pretty much every ideology and political group or cause)?
I'll be honest, Quag; if I believe what I read in Neil Strauss' book
, PUA was started by manipulative, sexist assholes with severe self-esteem issues and the self-awareness of a brick. They were successful at getting laid in the same way that James Brown was successful at show business or Jordan Belfort at finance: you get what you want, and you wreck yourself and your life along the way, leaving a wake of destruction and misery.
Some of their following, however, I hope, consisted of mostly guys who would like to find a romantic partner and didn't know where to start. It's these guys that I'm interested in setting up a complex of advice and information for, to help them to at least not get in their own way. As for me, I'm only beginning to see the light after years of awkward loneliness.
Not that the guys who just want sex are wrong for that. But that's not exactly my main interest, doesn't exactly require the same skill-set, and, well, I'd just rather let someone else take care of it.
edited 11th Jun '15 3:11:56 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

The result being "you get sex"? The fact that this attitude inherently objectifies the sex partner seems to be escaping you.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"