Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Cliff's Notes (Part III)


I had to find a way to shake off the sleep deprivation. It would be one thing if I was just in for another day of speakers, but I also had to be switched on for Cliff's film crew. I was going to be interviewed for the DVD that afternoon. Having been interviewed for a documentary on the seduction community the previous day, I wasn't worried about being comfortable in front of the camera, but I was concerned about yawning mid-sentence.

PUA Logan and I had to get an early start because he was one of the first scheduled speakers. Also, after hearing about how controversial David Shade's talk was going to be (the film crew allegedly threatened to turn of the cameras), I didn't want to miss that, either.

Once again, there was a dichotomy between the speakers who focused on self-improvement and those who gave quick-fix strategies on attracting a woman. I noticed that the men who seemed to have a genuine respect for females referred to them as "women" in their speeches, while the more questionable ones called them "girls". Again, I was baffled that a couple of these guys used their time on stage to show off their big personalities, but had little-to-no practical tips to offer. But then you had presenters like Doc: eloquent, intelligent, and thought-provoking. His talk on how to expand your social network was one of the highlights of the conference for me.

Lunch started out quietly, as I sat down alone in the hotel bar. Within twenty minutes, I was surrounded by presenters. We chatted about our impressions of the event, the community, etc.

(I'm leaving out some of the anecdotes, because I think I've written enough about the convention in the blog.)

I managed to injest enough caffeine to be reasonable well-spoken during my interview for the DVD set, which Cliff was kind enough to expand from 15 minutes to half an hour.

A few hours and several speakers later, Logan and I were on the road. As much as I regretted missing T's party that night and getting to know more community guys, I was a bit worn out and ready to go home.

An hour from my house, I called BF David.

"I have so much to tell you..."


coasta said...


Could you talk about the following speakers with regards to your general impressions, your interactions with, what you thought of their presentation, their persona, etc...

Steve Celeste - Toecutter
Vincent DiCarlo - Woodhaven
Blake Richards - IN10SE


Dolly said...

I'd rather not.

coasta said...

Um ok.

You told me earlier to post some people I knew, and you'd tell me how it went. I don't know these guys, but I thought you wouldn't mind substituting.

Guess not.

Dolly said...

Oops, sorry, Coasta, I meant to expand on my earlier comment, but the site was acting up and not letting me post, then I was hit with a wave of work.

I had very little, and in some cases no contact with the guys you listed.

Also, I think I just want to take a break from blogging about the conference and discuss other topics. I didn't mean to come across as rude.

redshirt said...

Hi coasta, I'm not Dolly D but I'll give my comments:

Brent - was not there. Other than Steve P, he was the guy I was hoping to see more than any other.

Brian - ummm, which Brian are you referring to?

Toecutter - I was out with an up and coming master PUA, Brother Kermit so mnissed this. We went out for lunch along with the guys from the Chicago Lair, I had a great opener and then made a mistake on the follow through. Brother Kermit was able to pinpoint exactly what I did wrong, point out what to do right, and then proceeded to pick up the waitress, all the while breaking down every move he was doing and why. It was pure genius. You can check out his site at www.franktalks.com

Vin DiCarlo - imo his presentation was reality changing. It was like the first time I saw Brent in DYD's Advanced series, where his idea of "dating" flipped my idea of reality upside down. Vin DiCarlo talked about how you can get a girl to buy you things, and then you reward her with sex. Can you believe it? Looking back, I used to have problems with girls just meeting me half way. For example, before learning about The Arts, I had always paid for everything with a girl - no girl I liked EVER bought me even a bottle of water. So for Vin to come out with a method for showing how you can completely turn the tables around was amazing. He's a really nice laid back guy too, great body language and voice tone.

Zan - he is exactly like the videos, completely congruent, the classic rake. Great dresser, takes care of himself, loves women. One thing that really stood out in Zan's presentation is that Zan is VERY well read. From Lao Tzu to classic Greek literature to modern classics, he never comes out and says it but you know he's read a LOT of books, which is surprising since you'd think a rake would be spending all his time seducing women, but as someone who is also well read, I'm really impressed with his breadth and depth of knowledge of things beyond pickup. The guy to me really is a philospher who also happens to take care of himself and love women. He's moving from Vancouver to Montreal and being that I'm in Toronto, I hope I will get the chance to meet him again.

Blake Richards - I don't think he was there.

coasta said...

no worries.

Thanks for the report. Funny, cause brent was the one I was most interested about as well.

The Brian I was referring to was first on a DYD interview I think...then cliff interviewed him as well.

Anonymous said...

You thought Vin was "reality changing?" To me all I got was a misogynistic rehashing of the general idea that runs the community -- that you have to make the woman chase you. I think at first glance it may "sound good" to some guys because you keep your women on a short leash, so to speak, but is this really the kind of relationship you want with women?

~~Affection (PUA Logan)
Project Manhattan(tm)

SecondarySight said...

Affection said:
You thought Vin was "reality changing?" To me all I got was a misogynistic rehashing of the general idea that runs the community -- that you have to make the woman chase you. I think at first glance it may "sound good" to some guys because you keep your women on a short leash, so to speak, but is this really the kind of relationship you want with women?

Hell no. I have no desire for a relationship in which I have massively "higher value" than the woman either. I would just become bored with her. I want a relationship with a woman who has around the same value as I do. If indeed it is true that I need to have higher value than a woman in order to seduce her, I don't want to the gap in power to be any larger than it needs to be practically.

I don't want a woman who will fawn on me like I fawned on women as an AFC. It's not that I haven't entertained the idea. It's just that I realize that I would not be able to respect a woman who behaved that way and I would become bored in a relationship with her.

I think some guys in the community like the idea of wielding the kind of massive power over women that women used to weild over them. The motivation may be revenge in some cases, which could be described as "misogyny." Other guys might just want an ego boost. And I think in many cases that guys with these attitude have been taught that power (e.g. "higher value") is attractive to women, so you can't ever have too much power over women. It's true that power is attractive to most women, but that doesn't mean that more is always better: once the power gap becomes too big, a relationship becomes impossible.

Good post. I've learned so much in the community, but I've been becoming increasingly aware of various dogmas in it that really need to be questioned.

redshirt said...

Playing the "misogynist" card, nice. How imaginative. Never heard that word thrown out in the PUA community before. Ever. How original.

I could throw an insult for lack of wit but instead I will enlighten you.

The reason why Vin's presentation was "reality changing" for me was because for a long time in my life, my relationships with women basically involved me doing everything. Buying things, making dates, leading the way, etc etc etc. What I wanted more than anything else was someone who would meet me halfway. That's it, pure and simple.

Just beacuse I wanted it didn't mean that I knew how to get it, or have the beliefs in order to get it. I agree that Vin takes what I want to a complete extreme, to go from me doing everything to the woman doing everything. This was what helped changed my reality, to see that what I wanted wasn't really this impossible dream and that in fact, I could take it even further. Not that I would choose to. However, just knowing that it's possible gives me a stronger sense of belief that it's more than possible and even yes, reasonable.

Dolly said...

Secondary Sight,
I'm glad there are men out there who question certain PUA dogmas. Even though I am predominantly supportive of the community, there's plenty I don't agree with or find disturbing. I could go on and on on how much I don't like the whole notion of giving women numbers (HB9, etc.) and placing so much emphasis on their replication value. A certain someone at the convention showed a lot of enthusiasm for the fact that the age of consent in Canada is 14 (Ew, anyone?). There are others, enough for an entire post. I'm curious what your concerns are.

I have to say, I was also a little miffed when you described Vin's presentation as "reality changing" because while I found it eye opening, it was out of horror more than anything else. I can't agree with a man that encourages the use belittling techniques or manipulating a woman with sex. It sounds like you have let women take a lot of the power in relationships before and I understand how you would want things to be more balanced. When you say you want a woman to meet you half way, I get the general idea that you don't want to be the one doing all the work, taking all the initiative (correct me if I'm wrong). Something I have noticed among men and women alike is this pattern of accepting bad behavior in dating/relationships because we don't think we can do any better or even deserve any better. I think this partly stems from a lack of self-esteem and partly from not sticking to what we want from a relationship. If everybody learns not to tolerate shabby treatment in a relationships, then we'll all have no choice but to start behaving better. And maybe we'll actually work on maintaining dignity in relationships instead of fighting power struggles.

redshirt said...

Hi Dolly, it's true, a lot of my relationships in the past were not balanced. I'll give you a fresh example. Right after I got back from Cliff's Convention this "girl that got away" who now I want her only for a friend/pivot now (beautiful blonde, awesome social proof last time we hung out), she sent me an email about just coming back from New York. Great I tell her, I just got back from Montreal, let's meet up for coffee so we can trade stories. Here's the reply I got, almost 3 weeks later:

"oh redshirt - your email got so lost in the shuffle. sorry!
and i am mad busy. i can't say with what exactly, there just always seems to be 10 things to do every day! I'm sure you know the feeling.
Gotta run.
Lets try to go grab a coffee soon. Next week is BAD> maybe the week after?"

WTF am I supposed to do with that?

Yeah, I can see where Vin could have been interpreted as offensive. And there were a lot of things that many PUAs on stage said that would have been controversial to the lay person (no pun intended). I decided to take the best of what they had to offer and sidestep the things I did not necessarily agree with. I don't live their lives and I haven't walked a mile in their shoes, I don't know that path they have travelled so I'm not going to get all judgemental on them. In fact, one of the things I took away from the convention is that I'm a pretty judgemental SOB. In fact, what Logan up there said would have been something I would have said to myself two years ago. Since the convention I have decided that I'm going to be less judgemental or try to impose my values on other people, to be more accepting of people and respect their differences, even if I don't necessarily agree with them.

But seriously, I'd be curious to know, what is the non-misogynistic way to respond to an email like the above? Given what Iearned, I have two ideas: 1. Next this "friend" 2. Make a joke about how she's gotta buy me a cookie for losing me, talk about how when you're busy it's even more important to take time out and proceed with making plans.

Dolly said...

I'm going to tackle this one before all the advice-happy people from Desperate Guy's blog pounce on you.

I think one of the best things that has enabled me to have a healthy relationship is having a life. This way, my whole life doesn't depend on having a man and being with him. One of my friends recently told me how he wants a woman and would make her his whole life. While that's sweet, it's also disturbing, because a person needs to have their own interests and friends beyond the relationship or you risk developing a codependency. For example, BF David needs to take tonight to do some work and spend time with his family. If I made our relationship EVERYTHING, I would feel lost at having nothing to do on a Friday night. Instead, I am meeting one friend for lunch and another for drinks. Even if I wasn't going out, I have plenty of things to do on my own, too.

In other words, my advice to you is to fill your calendar to the point where you are enjoying yourself and this (or any other) girl won't affect you so much. Develop new interests, reconnect with friends, get out of the house, etc. I wouldn't blow off this girl completely, but I wouldn't go for your second option either, because the tone you strike conveys a certain amount of bitterness. It's interesting that you are mad at her for ignoring you, but yet you only want to use her for social proof. You say nothing about her being a cool person, you just talk about wanting to use her for arm candy. That's not exactly being a good friend either, don't you think? If you believe there is a real foundation for the two of you to be friends, then make plans, but don't give her a hard time for disappearing. If she flakes again, then it's not worth pursuing. But if you are just going to use her to attract other women, is it possible that she has every right not to want to hang out?

Donovan said...

Nice, loved the review.

redshirt said...

Hi Dolly, thanks for the advice. You're right, I didn't mention what I thought of her as a person in my blog comment. I just posted a really long message about the whole situation and about her on a lair board where I did mention this. We're definitely very compatible in terms of having similar life philosophies, common interests, etc., however because she's not available and I've decided to take the approach of abundance and not "sarge" women who are unavailable, I decided that I'll make her a friend (one which as a side benefit, would also make a great pivot and someone try ideas as I learn new things).

Had the weekend to think it over and I've decided to not take her up on her "generous" offer of giving me the privilege of grovelling back to her and calling her to beg to meet up for coffee next week, taking time out of her oh-so-busy life. I did some thinking, and the question comes back time and time again, "Is this a shit test?" It sure smells like one to me. Not write back for 3 weeks, then blow me off by playing the stupid "my life is busy" card that she's been playing in all the 7 yeras I've known her, blah blah blah. The primary way to deal with a shit test is this, if a male friend or unattractive female did this to me, how would I react? Not good. The only reason I'm even questioning this is because I am attracted to her. I may have made the conscious decision not to pursue her, but that does not mean I deny that fact that I am attracted.

At the end of the day, this is behaviour I would not put up with from anyone else. So I have two options, just completely not respond and if and when she brings it up why I didn't respond, I'll just non-chalantly say that I don't hang out with people that are that disrespectful, or I email back and say if she's busy then nevermind.

I read something this weekend by Badboy where he says: "You can apply these characteristics to your own life. They are actually core lessons for living successfully on this planet. Let's take respect for example: How do you ensure that the people around you show respect for you and your work? First start to respect yourself and your work too.

When you start to respect yourself completely, other people will respect you as well. If you don't respect yourself, why in the world would anyone else respect you? If you treat yourself like shit, trust me, other people will do the same because you are sending a strong signal to the world that shit is just what you are."

This pretty much falls into disrespect category, so if I back down now, it only shows that I don't respect myself. Worse than showing her that is me giving that message to myself.

Anonymous said...


What exactly is wrong with the age of consent being 14? :) Not that I would know... HB8.5TinyFetish (the girl from my Montreal threesome, for all those who haven't read my LR on mASF or MM) was 35. :)


When I get a response from a girl like the one in the e-mail you posted, my first thought, even before thinking of what to do with her next, is, "How did I get here?" Clearly, you're in damage control with this girl at this point, which means it was something earlier in the game that you needed to change to get with her. As far as how to fix it now, I don't know if you can. My response would simply be to tell her no problem, I was busy doing [insert really exciting thing or hot girl here] last week anyway so I wouldn't have had time.

~~Affection (PUA Logan)
Project Manhattan(tm)

SecondarySight said...

Dolly said:
I'm glad there are men out there who question certain PUA dogmas. Even though I am predominantly supportive of the community, there's plenty I don't agree with or find disturbing. I could go on and on on how much I don't like the whole notion of giving women numbers (HB9, etc.) and placing so much emphasis on their replication value. A certain someone at the convention showed a lot of enthusiasm for the fact that the age of consent in Canada is 14 (Ew, anyone?). There are others, enough for an entire post. I'm curious what your concerns are.

I am in some ways reluctant to criticize the community considering how much it has given me, but I think it is clear enough that the community is a good thing on the whole that it has come time to recognize some issues with it. The ideas I criticize are by no means held by all, or necessarily even most of the community, nor do they go uncriticized within the community, but neither are they on the fringe. This is going to get long, even though it will hardly be complete, so I am going to split it up into several posts.

1. Viewing women as completely interchangeable.

One of the definitions of "one-itis" I've seen is "the delusion that one girl is different from the others," or something like that. The definition in the fastseduction.com FAQ isn't much better:

"A disorder commonly found in AFCs, that forces them to think that one chick is so special that they'll do ANYTHING to get into her panties. The most common cure for this disease is to go out and fuck a Baker's Dozen of other chicks to see that one piece isn't that special."

One-itis (which I understand to be a kind of obsessive, unreciprocated crush combined with feelings of inadequacy and unworthiness) is a very real problem for people of both sexes, but especially for male AFCs who have been taught to see themselves as worthless in comparison to beautiful women. Still, saying that all women are interchangeable and misogynistic attitudes like thinking of the woman as a "piece" (of ass?) is not the best solution. I think these attitudes are attractive to some men because they need to knock women they have one-itis for off the pedestals in their mind, but those attitudes are not the only way to do so. Furthermore, the standard solution of Go Fuck Ten Other Women (GFTOW) for one-itis doesn't make much sense; what I have found to work is Go Find One Other Woman You Actually Like.

SecondarySight said...

2. The thing that works isn't always the thing that is right

Something we have had to struggle with in the community is the realization of what behaviors are attractive to women, and that these behaviors often involve displays of dominance, power, and status on the part of the male. Contrary to what many feminists believe about men, there is is no real evidence that men in general get off on dominating women sexually (what turns men on primarily is looks). In contrast, we PUAs learn very quickly that most women seem counter-intuitively attracted to dominant behavior from us, and prefer to be passive sexually. Note that I say "most" here: if you are a woman who isn't into manly men, doesn't like to be dominated sexually, and initiates 50%+ of all the sexual advances, then I don't want you to feel pigeon-holed, but your desires are not the norm for women.

What feminists are right about, however, is that dynamics of dominance and submission can be damaging and unhealthy to both people involved. These dynamics are not always damaging (contrary to what some feminists claim), but they often can be. This means that there are many dominance/power/aggressiveness-based seduction tactics that may work in that they get the woman turned on, but they are also morally problematic, because they erode empathy, rapport, trust, and respect between the two people involved. Exactly what techniques fall into this category can be hard to pin down, because context is so important, but I will say that some types of negging, busting/teasing, and LMR (Last Minute Resistance) tactics may fall into this category.

For example, telling a woman that she is a "little brat" (classic example of displaying dominance), depending on how it is said and in what context, can be a playful way of creating rapport, OR it can break rapport and make her feel less than you (even while turning her on). One of the mindsets advocated by many in the community is to treat a woman like she is your bratty little sister. If treatment is to be occasional, I suppose I am fine with it. But if it is to be most, or all of the time (and I have met women who do require this treatment to find a guy attractive, and I have dated or hooked up with a couple of them, but those are not experiences I am especially proud of or trying to repeat), then I have some problems with that mindset. First, it requires treating someone in a hierarchical manner, which has all sorts of problems that feminists have made us very well aware of; second, if I had a bratty little sister, I wouldn't want to have relationships with women I had to treat like her (though of course that is not a problem for the subset of PUAs who aren't interested in relationships).

My view is that many kinds of dominant and sexually aggressive behavior are a necessary evil for making sex and relationships possible with the majority of women. Some of that behavior, although it may be effective, is instead an unnecessary evil. Some PUAs have convinced themselves that this behavior is necessary, and even romanticize it as a good thing (a fragment from a quote from a PUA called Spirit Fingers: "I think this is how *every* woman is deep down inside. I don't think it's disturbing at all, I think it's a very beautiful thing to [be] f~~king the sh~t out a a wet little b~tch while she begs for your c~ock and is totally submissive to you. In fact, I think it is the most beautiful thing." ). They convince themselves that they can be happy in a relationship with their bratty little sister. This leads into another problem with the seduction community...

SecondarySight said...

3. Reluctant misogyny

By "misogyny," I mean that many men in the seduction community don't quite view women as consistently capable of mature, adult behavior. Terms like "chick logic" are often used to describe female thinking. This view finds precedents in misogynists like the German philosopher Otto Weininger, who believed that women were incapable of reason and ethics, and did not truly want to be free from the dominance of men (though I doubt any but a miniscule minority of PUAs are familiar with Weininger; they have come to his same conclusions independently). The "treat her like a bratty little sister/daughter" school of thought implies that since women are incapable of responsible behavior, men should lower their expectations.

I find this view of women understandable, and I subscribed to it myself for a little while, but I have come to realize that it is false. The problem with this view is not that these men are hating on women just for the fun of it: generally, they want to regard women as responsible adults who are looking for mutually enjoyable, empathetic relationships, but have trouble doing so because their experiences with women have taught them otherwise. See this post for instance, in which the author badly wants to "get over" his misogyny, yet even knowing the ways in which his view of women may be biased doesn't help him feel better about women. That is why I speak of "reluctant" misogyny.

I believe the PUA view(s) of women applies to at least a large minority of women, perhaps a small majority. Still, I am not convinced that most men don't have analogous flaws. Also, the perspective that many PUAs have on women is biased, not only by bad experiences and the environment they go to meet women (e.g. bars/clubs), but because of the psychological profile of men who make it into the community in the first place. I have come to believe that a much larger proportion of men in the seduction community than the general population, perhaps even the majority of PUAs, have a least one of the following characteristics:

1. They are introverts
2. They have high intelligence
3. They think in a way that is highly logical and systematic
4. They are very sensitive emotionally and have highly reactive nervous systems (which, in combination with introversion, predisposes them to severe approach anxiety)
5. They suffer from, or used to suffer from, love-shyness, which involves most or all of the above

These are the types of men who are most likely to do badly with women, but also have the intelligence and resourcefulness to realize that they are doing something that is not working and try to change it. Think of PUAs as (usually) introverts of above average intelligence (probably in the 120-150 IQ range, where only 2% of the population is above 130) who are highly sensitive, highly logical, or both. Then compare them to the average woman in a club, with an IQ of 90-100 who is neither particularly sensitive nor logical, and instead is highly extraverted and high in sensation-seeking. Clearly, this is not a fair comparison to see how women measure up to men. No wonder PUAs with the kind of psychological characteristics I describe don't consider those women to match up to them mentally or morally, and see club women as "stimulus junkies" (credit: TylerDurden, who has also advocated seeing women as cherished pets).

I think there are several solutions to this reluctant misogyny. The first is for PUAs to avoid generalizing about the "nature" of women without sufficient evidence. For instance, claiming that protracted LMR is a "normal" or "natural" female response that requires complex LMR tactics. Or claiming that women in general cannot be approached with compliments because their egos are too big from being constantly hit on by AFCs (Pickup 101's style of direct should serve as a counter-example). Or assuming that any woman you are in a relationship with will cheat with the next guy she meets who is more alpha than you. Some of these views of women are true of many women, perhaps even of the majority. Still, they are not as universal as many PUAs seem to believe them to be.

The second solution is that PUAs need to meet more women with the same kind of mental caliber and personality traits that they have. What helped me cure my reluctant misogyny (to the extent that I have cured it) was meeting more women who I found to be intelligent and mature people (and who didn't jump on the first neanderthal in sight) at university. I would like see more of an emphasis in the community on finding and seducing this type of woman than on seducing the intellectually average, submissive, often-masochistic, shit-testing type of woman that a large proportion of seduction techniques seem to be designed for.

I have some more critiques, such as the distorted and unscientific use of evolutionary psychology in the community, but I'll leave it here for now. Dolly, if you (or anyone else), have any questions or want me to elaborate on anything, let me know. Although this thread seems dead, I would also be curious to see if PUAs reading this find my critique to be fair or not.

redshirt said...

Affection, thanks for your reply - you're right, at this point it's major damage control, and here's one of those PUA generalizations - it's easier to meet someone new than the do damage control, I actually kept it cool and gave her a laid back reply and she's back to flake mode. So I'm letting this one go on her own path and wish her all the best.

Secondarysight - great post, you've pretty much nailed it for me, the high IQ (tested at low 160's), the emotional sensitivity, predilection towards introversion etc. Have you ever studied the Myers Briggs personality tests? I tested as an INTJ, which is about 1-2% of the population. It's funny, after I tested for INTJ, I went online to do some research and found some Yahoo newsgroups for INTJ's and in reading the posts, I'd think to myself, "If it were me, I'd reply like this..." and sure enough, someone replies and it's exactly how I would have. Being an INTJ, nevermind just women, sometimes I feel the enntire world is a completely different species, and I have tried hard all my life to relate to this world in some way that works.

The PUA material, for all its criticisms and faults, has given me the best tools so far for doing so, it's brought me closer to this world than I ever have been. That Dale Carnegie "How to Win Friends and Influence People" thing never worked for me. It literally made me come across as compeletely beta and it was worse than if I just did things my own way, before the PUA materials.

I think for me, finding an INTJ is not the answer for me. I want to solve the bigger problem of relating to the world in a meaningful way and not just huddling in my small little plot with my 2% INTJ mate, looking at the world with fear.

As one of the PUA's says, you can look at the world in one of two ways: Love or Fear. I choose Love, but sometimes, you the path to Love isn't all sunshines and rainbows. Sometimes it IS the Gunwitch method and "going caveman" on a girl, sometimes it does mean running Perfect Couple to deflect LMR, or even better, doing the Jlaix and saying "I want to lick it" to easily get the panties off "just for oral sex", licking it for 20 minutes which creates massave arousal and then she'll be begging you to stick it in, thereby completely bypassing the issue of LMR in the first place.

I agree though, some of that evolutionary psychology stuff is a bunch of bullshit that distracts from the main goal. I want to relate to this world. I don't give a shit about selfish genes and replicators - in fact, many scientists have already disproven Richard Dawkins' theory so I don't know why people are still talking about it (DYD's Mastery series was highly successful). As one of the PUA's said to me, when someone tries to throw bullshit at you, your response should be, "So how does what you just said help me make money or get laid? It doesn't? Well then I don't want to know about it." lol

Dolly said...

Which PUA said you can look at the world from a place of Love or Fear? That's something out of Donnie Darko. Way too simplistic and reductive. And there's plenty of worthwhile knowledge out there that will not help you make money or get laid. If you want to relate to the world in a meaningful way, it might be good to turn a deaf ear to the guys whose respect for women is dubious at best and whose wisdom is rehashed bits of pop culture and self help material.

redshirt said...

Hi Dolly, I believe it's Stephane at Ideagasms that talks about Love vs. Fear. To me it makes sense. Maybe because it breaks things down to the simple and basic.

In a way, I see what you mean. When you things in polarities, it lacks contaxt. For example, being a logical kind of guy, I tend to see things it to ways: it either works or it does not work.

So for example:

What doesn't work:
- Buying flowers
- Compliments
- Being politically correct
- Opening doors

What works:
- Going caveman
- Opinion opener
- The Cube

Now, add the idea of context into it and a lot of the things that supposedly "don't work" actually work very well. For example, in the context of a relationship, buying flowers, compliments, opening doors does work, if you're doing from a place of unconditional expression of requited feelings rather than say, oh a first date, when it just comes across as being beta.

So you're right, the polarity thing doesn't work without the application of context.

However, look at the above list of "what does work". Generally, doing The Cube on someone "works" in most contexts. An indirect opening "works" in most contexts as well. Whereas "going caveman" would be highly context sensitive and more situations than not do not work.

I think that's part of what makes the PUA materials so good is that generally, they teach you thinks you can do that work in many contexts (such as opinion openers, demonstrations of higher value) while cutting down on things to do that need high context to work (ie. buying flowers, direct game) until you learn to socially calibrate.

Maybe most people out there grew up in a very social family and life situation, I can only speak for myself, but coming from the background I did, I didn't get a chance to be in many social sitiuations, I had no good examples to model, no one taught me how to socially calibrate, so I'm teaching myself, and imo I stand by my opinion that despite any flaws, the PUA materials have been the most effective way for me to learn to become more social and relate better to this world.

And back to the original point, yes, even Vin DiCarlo's ideas of getting women to buy things for you and then rewarding them with sex. After all, you can't appreciate a rainbow without seeing the entire spectrum. The idea that such a thing is even possible in this world is a reality changing revelation to me. Not that this is where I want to go, but to see that, I can look at my situation and what I want and hey, I'm actually pretty reasonable. It's all about calibration.

Dolly said...

I agree, it's about context, but you can't say that some of the material out there, whether or not it's effective, is morally questionable. Manipulating a woman sexually, even if you become a pro at it, is pretty scummy (in the same way that women who use their looks to get free things (drinks, presents, etc.) is also morally questionable. I'm not saying that you aim to follow any of these shadier practices, I just hope that you are aware that regardless of how well they work, some of those strategies are disrespectful to women.

As for behavior that works and doesn't work, again, I agree that indirect and fun routines like the Cube are a good way to get a girl's attention. But when you develop your inner game more, you'l find that anything will work, even (*gasp*) compliments and direct approach. Also, gentlemanly acts like opening doors and helping a woman with her coat are most definitely not things a beta male does. I know plenty of women (counting myself among them) who will dismiss a man outright for lack of manners. If you think about it, some of those acts of chivalry are actually male dominant behavior (ie; a man pulling a chair out for a woman is almost subtly commanding her to sit down). I cannot stress enough how important they are. The best PUAs I have met have always had good manners.

redshirt said...

Hi Dolly, wow, that's interesting, it never even occurred to me that pulling up a chair could be an "alpha" thing to do. I read your Cliff's Convention posts again just to refresh and your impressions of David Shade, I thought this was a good example.

Did you get a chance to hear his speech (I'm assuming you did)? Because what he was doing was tying a woman up and locking her in a closet for an hour and then he said some pretty rough and dirty things to her, yet it worked because of context and he calibrated correctly.

But if someone were to ask me about David Shade and I just said, "Oh yeah, he tied this chick up, told her to shut f--- up, locked her in his dark closet for an hour, then had his way with her while saying the nastiest things you've ever heard", that person would think David is a complete psychopath. But David was one of the classiest guys I have ever met.

So technically, what David did could have been interpreted badly, but it wasn't because he did it in a "respectful" way (if that makes any sense at all).

It's just like your pulling a chair for a woman, it can be done "alpha" or it can be done "beta".

There's a movie I saw when I was a little kid, and it was about two young adolescent boys discovering girls, one was really good with them and the other was horrible. The horrible one asked him what his secret was and the good one replied, "It's not WHAT you say/do, it's HOW you say/do it." So it's the intention of the act and where it comes from.

Dolly said...

I did see David Shade's talk and I thought it was quite good. He asked me for my feedback afterwards and I told him I thought he had some insightful things to say about creating and living out a fantasy for a woman, but that he should have emphasized the fact that in power play scenarios, you need to respect the boundaries (for example, in roleplaying, it is absolutely CRUCIAL to have some kind of signal or safe word to stop; a significant oversight on David's part). I also think David should not have mentioned the scenario with tying the woman to the closet door, because that is as advanced as Advanced Applications get and I don't feel he emphasized that well enough. Plus, while plenty of women, possibly the majority, are submissive sexually, there are also many who are dominant or switch-hitters, and that's something I felt was left out, too.