Friday, December 08, 2006

How Not to be a Pickup Artist

In the last week or so, I have received the following messages from Realtor Rick:

"Are you fun?"

"How can i lose a pirate themed bet? Suggestions welcome."

"This is magic!
Keep pressing down & you'll see santa's willy
[space]
[space]
act your fucking age, there is no Santa! :) pervert!"

If there is such a thing as text spam, you're looking at it. What's next, offers on discount prescription meds, penis enlargements, and millions of dollars sitting in a Nigerian bank?

I was sorely tempted to reply "unsubscribe" to that last text, but I did not answer any of the above messages, because I know that any reaction to a PUA is considered a good reaction. Besides, it's much more fun to mock them in my blog. I actually wasn't even going to write about it, but it's been a slow week, so what the hell.

This made me realize some of the issues I've had with certain PUAs I've met. Many are fun and cool guys, but a lot of the time I end up feeling like I'm interacting with a caricature, not a person. There have been moments when I've been able to get past the PUA border and talk to the guy about real things, but they have been rare. Once, during a blogger outing, one PUA said I was throwing him off his game because we were discussing serious matters with actual depth (origins of the world, biology versus social programming, etc.). Which I would think would be a nice change from asking a dozen different women,

"Do you think David Bowie is hot?"

For some crazy reason, I thought Realtor Rick would be able to treat me like a friend, not a sounding board for text game. [Incidentally, if any man read the above messages and was even vaguely tempted to send one of them to a women, I implore you not to--unless you want to be The Cheesy Guy. Friends don't let friends send corny texts.]


I even tried to send him a more personal email, asking what he's been up to. The reply?

Even Pickup Artists Have Families.

Um, is that the title of the real email I was supposed to receive, or maybe a book report he is working on for the next lair meeting? Who knows. I just know my eyes are getting sore from rolling them so much.

I had the same problem with PUA Logan. I spent an entire weekend in Canada with him, but didn't get a sense that I got beyond the exterior player (or playa, as the kids today like to say) shell. It got to a point where I got really annoyed by his poking and hair pulling and throwing pieces of paper at me. The seduction community has a tip where they suggest treating the woman like she's your kid sister, but I always find that condescending and irritating, not the least bit attractive, and end up viewing the guy more as the annoying little brother I'm glad I never had.

To be fair, I know I have complained about men who are dull and ask the generic what-do-you-do-for-a-living questions. However, I think a certain amount of small talk is not so bad when you are just getting to know somebody, and there's a point at which the routines really do come across as phony and hollow. Maybe not to less suspecting or more foolish women, but to me there's something way contrived and trying-too-hard about that kind of thing. I'll give some credit for trying to be different, but it would be even cooler if different could also incorporate an element of being real.

From what I have observed of the seduction community, I wonder if some men experience a loss of identity in trying to be the ultimate confident alpha male. Yes, there's an element of self-improvement, if (IF) the information is processed a certain way, but I also think there's a risk for self-delusion, too. You know, Social Robot Syndrome.

I find that, while I still like a man to be dominant, I also go for vulnerability, maybe a streak of shyness or geekiness, and a range of human emotions other than perennial cheerfulness. You know, genuine layers of quirks and feelings and flaws that all people have. And sure, I'm a sucker for good banter, but there's a point where it needs to stop skimming the surface. Coworker Chris and I flirt and lob playful chatter at each other, but the next minute we might be sharing our innermost thoughts.

My point is, I know there are seduction guys who read this blog, and I know the lines and routines are going to be passed around and memorized and tested anyway, but I just wanted to give a shout out to, well, showing a bit of depth and range of character from time to time.

And seriously, the little sister thing? Please knock it off.

113 comments:

StrangerInTheseParts said...

I have been waiting forever for you to write a post like this.

Dolly said...

Woo! Do I get a cookie?

airbuzzer said...

Yeah I agree, there needs to be a point where the banter needs to go and rapport has to set in where the interaction is 50-50.

Anonymous said...

THANK YOU!
I knew a guy that acted like that logan character. So fucking annoying I wanted to punch his lights out on multiple occassions.

Anonymous said...

Little Sister,

To be fair, you don't get to see PUAs as they act in real relationships. Your weekend with me ("Logan," for all the readers) was at a PUA convention. If you had presupposed that I would be in anything other than PUA mode, such an expectation was imprudent.

But more generally, you're "the girl who we (community members) can talk pickup to." You're not an "ordinary girl." What I mean by this is you put people into (PUA) state, which is exactly why I brought you into PM in the first place, but also exactly why you may be experiencing difficulties opening PUAs up beyond game.

No well-oiled PUA completely hides vulnerabilities, completely avoids deep conversation, or refuses to let you connect with him on a deep, genuine level. The point of the lines, routines, and games is not to show a woman an outer alpha shell encasing a completely different guy. Rather, when I approach a woman, the experience is designed to overcome barriers to her getting to know me (the "real" me), such as social conditioning, real time constraints, and competition.

In short, the problem is that I can't go up to a girl, "be myself," and have her like me because the barriers described above dictate that she is turned off to the idea of getting to know me. The solution is challenging her intellect and reality by shattering the rules and opening her mind to wanting to know me. Then I can be myself.

*hugs & pulls your hair*

~~Affection

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:32 PM:

You'd have been more likely to have taken your frustration out on me in bed. :) The "little sister" frame is one of the most consistently effective tools I have ever seen.

Later,

~~Affection (Logan)

Dolly said...

Logan,
If I recall, you said you hadn't read a book other than The Game in years. You hardly challenged my intellect. And regardless of what mode you are in, ESPECIALLY pickup mode, you can still convey a sense that there are many different and fascinating layers to you. The only thing I got a sense of was that you have made PUA your whole life. One reason I left Project Manhattan was because I did not believe you would be able to teach men to be more interesting people, you'd just show them tricks on reeling a "girl" (because I don't think I ever heard you use the word "woman" that weekend) in. I also don't agree with the lying and all the tactics on how to approach females with boyfriends, not to mention how to set groups of female friends against each other. If that's what you mean by shattering the rules, I'll stick to them, thanks. And honestly, you don't know how not cute the hair pulling and poking is. Maybe it works on those "legal" 14-year-olds in Canada, but it's pretty stale now. It's okay, you're only 21. I'm sure you'll develop a few more layers as you mature.

Pinnacle said...

Affection,

I agree wholeheartedly with
the last two paragraphs of
your first comment there.

And BTW Dolly, The David Bowie Opener is so money, you don't even know it.

I get smacked around for using it by other PUAs and I still do well. It surprises me how well it works.

Pinnacle

realtor rick said...

Is this a shit test?

Jack Roy said...

(Averred non-PUA here, so grain of salt and all that.)

I'm tempted just to file this as an entry in the "everything new eventually gets old" folder or to chalk it up to the rapidly changing weather (65 degrees last Friday; 19 in Central Park this morning---grr), but I think there's something more to this.

I've never bought Logan's theory of the PUA schtick being about overcoming barriers; instead it seems most of the rap seems aimed at the construction of an image, of a presentation of a PUA as a guy visibly confident enough to approach (and then appear ambiguously disinterested in) a woman because he appears to know he's good enough (or perhaps too good) for the woman. (We evaluate strangers from a perspective of uncertainty and use whatever heuristics are available, and in so doing we lend a lot of credence to what we perceive as someone else's self-image because who knows that person better than him- or herself?) PUA techniques seem to be largely about (a) presenting the PUA as someone who acts like he's worth it because he is worth it and (b) causing the PUA's conversant (or target, to be vulgar) to wonder whether she's worth it. Therefore negging, etc.

Interesting stuff, as far as it goes. But how impressive or effective is it going to be with someone who knows that's what the PUA is doing? Sure, it's going to be a distraction you might be in the mood for, but the illusion is gone because you understand how the magician is doing the trick. And if you see through the tricks designed to make a fellow look confident, then those tricks can become just another readily-apparent crutch for someone who appears not to be confident enough to engage someone without PUA techniques. I should think that would be considerably unimpressive. And from Dolly's post, I might think I was right.

clarissa said...

this stuff makes liesure suit larry sound practically inspired.

Anonymous said...

realtor rick:

lol :) Just add more kino. You know what they say... if it worked in 3rd grade, it works now. ;)

~~Affection

Anonymous said...

Blah blah blah. Logan and Rick, she's not rejecting you because you are AFCs or because you use routines, she's rejecting you because you are boring, hollow and one-dimensional SOCIAL ROBOTS.

realtor rick says...
Is this a shit test?

Re-read Style's post in The Game.

You can fake confidence, but you just can't fake a personality.

freefade3876 said...

can everyone just take a bong hit & chill the Eff out?!?! enough with this pre-fab PUA mode this mode that mode putting on airs mode to think you're furthering yourself among a certain niche of people mode...sociological profiling is for the birds, so hokey...just be yourself-mode will suffice for affable and assiduously alighting affectations for all imho...
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

lol charlie brown:

Sign up for one of our free recurring sarge events and come meet us. Our instructors are all chill, laid-back guys that are capable of being both socially normal and talented with women. We can get you half way to our goal of 30 approaches in one night. :)

Later,

~~Affection

Dolly said...

Clarissa,
I love you. That's the hardest I've laughed in ages.

Freefade,
A-f'in-men.

Logan,
I think you might have a bit more authority if you stop using emoticons. Also, please don't use my blog to promote your events. Do it again, and the comment gets deleted. :-D *hugz*

Anonymous said...

It annoys me to say it, and no one seems to want to admit it, but Realtor Rick's post was PERFECT.

Anonymous said...

No that shit was lame.



As a PUA, I'll gladly say I agree with your post Dolly, and thank you for confronting the community with the bullshit.

I recently told my mom about the community, but also told her what it's about and what type of influence I try to have on the community... and your post corresponds well with that.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Holy shit, just read all the comments in here.


Guys, you're pathetic. Grow up, get a life. Sexual social value is not going to make your value of self better in the long term. Happiness does not lie solely in women or the teachings of seduction....


pffff.

Anonymous said...

Please, you yourself are just another dork with a "Hey, I got laid!" blog.

Anonymous said...

Hehe. I love you, man.

This is why I'm in the game.

Anonymous said...

But more generally, you're "the girl who we (community members) can talk pickup to." You're not an "ordinary girl." What I mean by this is you put people into (PUA) state, which is exactly why I brought you into PM in the first place, but also exactly why you may be experiencing difficulties opening PUAs up beyond game.

I understand you'd want to practice with her, but it seems like she would be someone who you actually wouldn't be in pickup mode with, on account that she knows what you're trying to do and it's not working.

I would assume that a girl in such a position would be more likely to be treated by you like an actual sister, and not a potential lay. She's your ally, not your crash test dummy.

FS

SecondarySight said...

Hey Dolly,

Thanks again from providing some needed critiques of pickup artists while still keeping perspective. I advise other aspiring pickup artists to take Dolly's comments as evidence of the need for calibration and attuning one's methods to a woman's particular personality, instead of viewing them as a "shit test." When a woman tells a PUA that certain behavior isn't attractive to her, he should certainly be wary that she is testing him, but he should also be aware that she could be telling the truth and be giving him valuable pointers. Otherwise, he risks digging himself into a deeper hole.

Let's consider a situation in which a hypothetical PUA (HPUA) treats Dolly like a bratty little sister (HPUA's behavior may correspond in some ways to the behavior of Realtor Rick and Logan, but I really can't know because I have never met the people involved, so I am going to talk in hypotheticals rather than pick on them further). Let's also assume that Dolly is self-aware about her own preferences in men (as unfortunately many women are not), and genuinely does not find this treatment attractive. First, she hints that she would prefer another mode of interaction. HPUA either does not get the hint, or sees it as a "shit test," and continues with the bratty little sister frame. Next, Dolly tells him explicitly that she doesn't like being treated as a bratty little sister.

Now, HPUA is in a predicament. He worries that if he lets Dolly break his little sister frame, then he will lose "value" in her eyes, which could jeopardize her attraction for him and/or her respect for him. On the other hand, if he continues with his bratty little sister treatment, and it is really a deal-breaker for Dolly, then he would lose value by persisting in social un-intelligent behavior and ignoring her responses to him. The more he has treated her like a bratty little sister, the harder it is for him to back down without losing face. If Dolly isn't actually shit-testing him, then there is no reason for him to act like she is.

Considering the situation HPUA has gotten himself into, does he have any viable options? I think so. HPUA could try to find some kind of graceful way of communicating to Dolly that he hears her, but without making a big deal out of it, or acting like he was in the wrong (though if has dug himself into a deep hole, an offhand apology might be in order). He accepts her pointers, but from within his own frame. This way, his frame bends, but does not break. For Dolly, it might be a sign of value if a guy can back down from taking a stupid stand (though I obviously can't know for sure).

Ideally, HPUA would never have gotten into this situation in the first place. The problem is that he started out with a frame that was wrong for Dolly's personality. That is why he is in the double-bind of trying to persist with the wrong frame, or find a way to shift his frame.

Does any of this make sense from your point of view, Dolly?

SecondarySight said...

A few more comments...

I completely understand why many PUAs avoid deep conversation, showing vulnerability, showing their geeky side, or discussing intellectual topics: many of them have been BURNED with Let's Just Be Friends for showing those sides of themselves too much or too soon. There are few things more frustrating than creating a connection with a woman only to see her attraction to you fade before your eyes (it must be similar to how a woman feels when she has sex with a guy only to find that he is now disinterested in a relationship with her because he sees her as a slut).

As Logan points out, the "treat her like a little sister" frame is effective with the majority of female personality types (though certainly NOT with certain female personality types), which is why it is the default for so many PUAs. If women don't like this, they should look long and hard at their own behavior. Unfortunately, it is exactly the effectiveness of the little sister frame that leads it to be over-emphasized and applied without calibration to women who it will not appeal to. (Personally, I hate using the little sister frame because I do not want a relationship with someone who acts like my little sister or wants to be treated that way.)

You wonder "if some men experience a loss of identity in trying to be the ultimate confident alpha male." Hell, yes. I have experimented with various ideas, and found that some fit my personality better than others. I fully believe in pushing out of my comfort zone, and if I hadn't, I would still be pathetically shy and depressed. Yet while I try to push my personality to the limits (of say, how extraverted or assertive I can behave), I don't try to pretend that there aren't limits. My philosophy is to figure out the strengths of my personality (rapport, being interesting, being witty, having women admire me), and develop those strengths, rather than try to copy other people's strengths (like cocky humor or being ultra dominant).

I know that I will never be the macho man that many women are looking for, but luckily I don't think I need to be the ultimate confident alpha male to have reasonable success with women. I believe women are attracted to charismatic men, but ultimate-alpha-confidence is only one way to go about being charismatic. I agree with the community that confidence, dominance, sexual assertiveness, and social skills are necessary in some degree to have success with women in general. While virtually all women require at least one or two of those qualities, not all of those qualities are necessary with all women, or they are only necessary to lower degrees.

I should point out though, that many men who don't recognize any of these nuances are more sexually successful than I am (perhaps, in part, because they don't recognize these nuances). I do believe that my approach is the best compromise between finding women who want sex with me, having positive sexual and non-sexual relationships with women, and being true to what I think my identity is right now. Yet I still need more field experience.

Anonymous said...

I love the philosophy that PUA's use, but the fact they call themselves PUA's is really lame.

Just learn the techniques and don't tell anyone what you're doing. If a girl finds out that you actually study this shit and you call yourself a PUA, you'll end up the butt of her jokes.

Anonymous said...

Secondary Sight, do you know Dolly? Because you sure sound like an AFC sucking after a blowjob.

Anonymous said...

Nice neg man, I'd love to meet your girlfriend and your friends.

I'll be learning from Sebastian in Boston.

G M said...

Right. You're the Russian chick who works with those Manhattan PUA guys right?

Okay, you're right. The whole PUA thing is kind of fake, with its lines, canned routines and all. (Keep in mind, you know this stuff already.) But there's also something else I wanted to talk about:

Most guys hit on girls because they're hot. Usually, the guy honestly comes up to talk to the girl because he was attracted to her looks. Maybe that's not fair in itself, but it's biological. So women get hit on by lots of guys. (Women, in turn, often use this to feel how hot they are that day.) And the hot ones get bored -- no, tired of it. Which means the guy who gets their attention has to be interesting.

What's more, the whole PUA thing is that you routinely go and talk to STRANGERS. Most guys suck at this at first, so they keep approaching lots of women to get SOME success. See where I'm going with this? Their approaches can be anywhere! Sometimes there's no obvious reason why you'd talk to a random stranger unless it was because you're a guy, and she's a hot girl, and you want to ask her out. So the real reason to have routines is to have something to say when you can't think of anything. Dolly, YOU try to figure out a reason to approach someone in a park or on a subway, without ever preparing. Everyone prepares SOMETHING. Even Winston Churchill, known as a great orator and terrific dinner guest, would actually prepare for hours exactly what he would say and to whom at the table.

Wouldn't it be nice if the guy just asked the girl out, let her know he thinks she's beautiful, and she'd be honest about whether she likes him or not? Yes it would, except women don't instantly get attracted to men -- that would be based on their looks (unless the man's really hot, I've heard).

Hitch says it nicely. (Even though many PUAs think that movie's silly, it actually holds more truth than they realize). "No woman wakes up one day and says, 'I wish I DON'T get swept off my feet today." Women walk around brushing off guys, but the guy needs game to get their attention. Don't know how it was in the 50s, but that's the way it is now.

I guess I can describe the current condition of guys and girls (or, as you proclaim, "cocks and dolls") in today's society like this:

>>Women don't know who they want until they feel him. Men don't know who they had until they lose her.<<

Whoa I took a lot of lines to write to you. I just wanted to explain that guys don't have it easy, since they need to get past step 1. I guess you know that, since you work with PUAs. But I'm totally with you that, after they get past step 1, canned stuff becomes stupid.

Greg

G M said...

How many times did I say RIGHT in the first paragraph? Oh noooo I'm soo insecure :) I can never be a PUA

Anonymous said...

ok i need to read the game so i can get more insight into this whole pua thing, but on the surface it seems pretty sad...again a lot of this is because i have very conflicted views on the adherence to gender scheme, but the concept of creating dictionaries and hundreds of three letter acronyms to try to spice up the fact that you are essentially dedicating your life to the pursuit of getting laid seems kind of lame in the end.

sort of like, playing videogames or d&d in small amounts is totally fun for some people, but when it is all that people do, and suddenly they have posters of laura croft everywhere and they talk in depth about the philosophy of star trek...after a while it does seem sort of trite and like they are caricatures of people.

i think what i am inarticulately trying to say is that it seems kind of pathetic to create this entire underground culture dedicated to what is essentially a very base human need=companionship and sex...and to try to trump it up into some great fraternal organization seems kind of dorky.

zosnut said...

Clarissa, I think you hit on something (maybe on someone too, but I digress), about this strange community.
The main target of the _commercial_ PUA activity is indeed made of dorks. I'd say the whole thing is (logically) calibrated for them.

Spirit Fingers said...

It's true, a lot of guys blow themselves out with "how do i lose a pirate bet" kind of stuff. And, it's important to show her that you're something more than a player.

I've posted my perspective on this, as well as some tips on how to fix situations like Realtor Rick's here:

How Not to be a Pickup Artist...My Perspective

Anonymous said...

If PU is sad and dorky, it's sad and dorky the way Cosmo magazine is. It's pathetic Cosmo even exists, let alone is one of the most successful magazines in history. It's sad that women don't know that they should just "be themselves" and everything will work out fine. Unfortunately, many women don't think they're attractive, stylish, or good enough in bed, so they subscribe to Cosmo, and Seventeen, Glamour, etc.

Those magazines are about PICKUP. What to wear, where to live, how to furnish, where to go, how to act, how to exercise, how to eat, how to smell, when to call, what to say, when to pay, how to kiss, how to fuck, what to do after that, how to know if it's right, how to know if it's wrong -- is there ANYTHING in these magazines that doesn't fall into one of these categories? Pickup is only "underground" because women attack it as something qualitatively different from what they themselves are doing. But it's not.

But you want guys to have a place to learn this stuff. It's great to have a place to learn how to do cunnilingus better. It's not something guys will discuss in person. Do you think guys are just born "knowing" this stuff? Not any more than women are, but women are socialized to discuss these issues incessantly. So why begrudge the (tiny) percentage of guys who are motivated to make themselves appealing in the same way?

Yeah, the "lair" term is lame. Yes, Logan is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. But as time goes on, the smarter ones will prevail. A guy like David DeAngelo can see the big picture, so he nets $10m/year and never has to be in a club at 1am telling clients to stop mumbling.

Mia said...

I LOVE what Clarissa wrote and I LOVE what Spirit fingers wrote too. This is all so multi-faceted and contra dictory, love and sex are the driving force of all the world....somehow I have to believe that those who are starving and dying in third world nations and those who are dying in the wars and acts of terrorism, can somehow be boiled down to somebody somewhere trying to gain power to use an aphrodisiac....

SecondarySight said...

Clarissa said:
i think what i am inarticulately trying to say is that it seems kind of pathetic to create this entire underground culture dedicated to what is essentially a very base human need=companionship and sex.

Sure, it's pathetic (as is the stuff that many women read). But what is worse, being geeky and being shy with women, or being geeky and doing something about it? For some men, looking at socializing as a kind of computer game is the ONLY way they are going to learn to be social. Seriously, you try to find another way to teach geeky guys to socialize with women that is this effective. Guys go to the seduction community because there is no where else. Doing nothing means staying shy and lonely. They can't "just be themselves," because then they will just go on being geeky and shy. They can't just be "confident," because they have nothing to draw confidence from, and a history of rejection. There is nowhere else in our societies where shy and geeky guys can find advice with women that actually works considering the situation they are in.

Of course, there are drawbacks to this teaching method, which is that many guys become "social robots." Yet that is a stage many of them will have to go through, and hopefully come out from. Once you can actually socialize comfortably, then you can throw away the jargon and the acronyms (and many guys make a point of doing this after they reach a certain level of experience).

Mia said...

okay it's me again, it was driving me nuts that my last sentence is missing the word "an" in between as and aphrodsiac

Yes, I will preview before posting from now on.....

injaku said...

You always wonder what others will take away from what you say. Luckly the blog-o-sphere to help us out.

Personally I assumed dolly's post was an attempt to cry for greater breath and depth outside the narrow confines of pickup.

Of course opinions differ:
http://sexrevolutionblog.com/?p=196

While I agree that breath is a good ideal, I fear that not having great depth outside of a single point of interest is the norm amoung the population regardless if that single point of interest is pickup.

There is of course a narrow range of interests which are deemed acceptable areas of personal specialization: movies, sports, fashion, cars, music, politics (well, ok I wish politics were), and "popular" culture in general.

I don't see a man who chooses to specialize in pickup any more/nor less well rounded then the guy who can only talk about the current batting average of his local baseball team. In fact I would consider the PUA skills more general useful. Assuming he takes the general ability to read emotional states of others, create and maintain a fun conversion, and the courage to talk to new people to areas of life beyond pickup.

Its is a great idea to point out that personal growth shouldn't stop at just pickup, but I think signaling out pickup arts as some how being different in regard to breath is unfair.

Anonymous said...

mia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

pretty basic stuff. also we're not discussing how pua's factor into politics, globalization, war, or economics. it's nice to try to stay topical, you know?

Anonymous said...

SecondarySight:

i get what you are saying, but i guess the one thing that seems weird to me about the PUA stuff (and i am saying this with full acknowledgment that i don't know a ton about the scene other than what i've looked up online recently coupled with what i have read here) is that it seems like it really creates an in/out group dynamic between the genders.

i'm no great gender theorist, but i do get a little angsty when i see things that are very "us vs. them" when relating to sex, and that totally includes crap like "men are from mars/women venus" or even women's magazines...because when you turn relationships or dating or the opposite sex into a game or a construct, you really are removing the humanity from the situation, and to a degree, the whole point. it just seems very abstracted, and very fraternal...which i guess is equally neat since the fraternal organization stuff might be giving men who need it more confidence, but it can also possibly build up stereotypes or prejudices against women too (the inverse being true if there are woman pua's out there - i have no idea)

sort of like the whole modality, and how people seem to have a hard time sorting out which mode works better on a specific woman...instead of actually figuring the woman out as a person, it seems like she is being treated like a combination lock...and since one is paying attention more on how to break down her walls, they might be ignoring the fact that she isn't really even their type to begin with, but since she is just a conquest, it doesn't matter.

if you don't mind my asking (and this goes out there to all the PUAs reading this) do you use these techniques primarily to get laid or to meet a woman you may want a relationship with? i ask because the lines that dolly posted here from realtor rick really just reminded me of some guy with a bad combover and a leisure suit throwing lines against a wall until something stuck ..i couldn't imagine wanting something substantial with someone if they treated me like a kid or if they had something that could be identified as a routine.

Anonymous said...

"I also don't agree with the lying and all the tactics on how to approach females with boyfriends, not to mention how to set groups of female friends against each other. If that's what you mean by shattering the rules, I'll stick to them, thanks."

well said!

I can't even fathom how someone could think about doing those things for nothing more than meaningless sex. It's really horrible and sad.

Not to sound like Oprah or anything, but perhaps if these guys can't be themselves when approaching women they should think about working on the things that are actually wrong with themselves. Whether its not having any self esteem, or being a giant asshole(since it seems to fall on a continuum between those two traits), there are other paths toward self improvement that are more manly to me than manipulating women into liking the fake version of oneself.

Anonymous said...

The "manipulating women into liking the fake version of oneself" is sneered at in the community. That's what the shorthand "social robot" is referring to -- insecure guys who don't believe they have an attractive self, so they focus on spitting out canned lines to simulate one. These people are mocked, and women can see through them anyway.

Ninety percent of the community is about self-improvement. Getting healthy, eating right, being well-rounded, having a dream and busting your ass to realize it, reading, knowing hip music, etc.

We can't hide who we are, but we can stop hiding what's great about us. What a lot of women don't know about guys is that most guys are pretty wonderful. Really. There are a lot of guys who are honest, moral, kind, loving, smart, funny and work their asses off. They make the world better. They would make great husbands, great dads. But until someone tells them not to wear brown shoes with a black jacket, women won't give them the time of day.

Spirit Fingers said...

mia --

Thanks ;)

injaku & others --

My post was mainly about how to fix situations like Realtor Rick's once you've gotten into them. I was also thinking of writing something on the personal development vs. pickup skills debate, but that's a whole new can of worms that I could blog for weeks on.

Personally, I think personal development and improving your confidence is a better path to success with women than learning tricks and techniques. The problem is, most people who advocate confidence/inner game have no idea how to develop it. They just tell guys "be cool" or "just believe you can do it" with no advice given as to HOW the guys should develop these beliefs in themselves.

This is why I've been blogging mainly about ways for men to become better in bed lately, rather than on new techniques for them to pick up chicks. I've found that for me personally, becoming a better lover was something real and concrete I could do to increase my confidence tremendously.

So, what do you guys think: what are some other real, concrete ways people can become more attractive by self-improvement/increasing their confidence? And nobody better say "NLP tapes," because I tried those and they suck ;)

Anonymous said...

Clarissa,

Men are starting to seriously study women. And no one studies and discusses female behavior more than pickup artists.

There is MUCH more truth coming out of the pickup community than comes out of the mouth of women - including yourself and Dolly.

Women tell men "be yourself". That is the WORST advice and no guy should ever listen to that..... at first.

When a guy first hears that, he resorts to being "nice". Which is NOT what women want. They want an ALPHA that is nice but not too nice.

There are various "alpha flavors" if you will, and what you are seeing from the pickup community is trial-and-error of men trying different methods and ideas.

"Little sister" is one of many ideas or mindsets. The idea behind it is a playfulness which is attractive to women. In this case, it was poorly executed with random phrases that didn't seem to connect and made no sense. And even more importantly, there is a universal law: a perceived tactic is no tactic at all.

But if anything can overcome this law, it's correctly executed pickup. Some time ago, Dolly posted about a pickup artist that crashed some convention (or something) she was at. She knew he was a pickup artist, knew he was hitting her with techniques, and STILL became attracted to him (then later he screwed it up by lying, or something).

There is an art to "sweeping a woman off of her feet". It certainly doesn't happen through Monday Night football, playing XBox, or watching kung fu movies. You have to study and understand the general model of the female mind.

There are all kinds of things that are confusing to men and women rarely admit (even to themselves). One example is female rape fantasies. The list is long. The female psyche is a complex place.

It's easy to scoff at the whole pickup artist thing and call it pathetic, but imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine YOU had to do all the approaching towards men. Then you too would probably start studying the target, figure out what men like, etc. Trust me, you would MUCH rather try to figure out a general model of the male mind that a female mind.

Do women want flowers and candy? Yes... from Brad Pitt. But that tactic won't work for the average looking guy in the cubicle next to yours. He has to have a completely different game.

We (men) accept the responsibility that we have to do all the approaching. But we also have learned that if we walk up, are completely "ourselves" and are nice to you, some tool on a motorcycle is going to come blazing up and steal you away in two minutes while we've been working on you for an hour.

You really do have to have a certain level of "game" to get anywhere. Especially in New York City.

That alpha-male dynamic is what we're all trying to master. Each man is tasked with trying to find his own particular flavor of the "motorcycle guy" that is also congruent with his personality. So we stumble and bumble around trying to figure it out and get it right.

There is no way a guy can learn this stuff without making mistakes. That's just part of the learning process.

Trust me: you want a guy who can make you horny, understands you, listens to you, can get you out of bad moods, is not intimidated by you in the least, and is so sure of himself that he stands firm through shit tests like a cliff stands against waves breaking on its shore.

That's a guy who's studied pickup (which really is the study of women) for years, and has understood not just the lines, but the IDEAS behind the lines. The mindset. And has re-programmed himself to become a true alpha male version of himself. He's found a congruency, an understanding of the female mind, and a way to map his positive characteristics against that successfully.

Only then should a guy just be "himself" as that truly is now the way he is and he's very attractive to women.

- Mark

Anonymous said...

mark,

your comment just seems to solidify the fact that PUAs are studying women as potential fucks instead of as people, especially since you are tunnel visioned enough to entertain the fact that only now are people making the effort to study "women", effectively discounting years of gender based psychology. the fact that you even go so far as to denigrate both mine and dolly's truthfulness when you don't even know us speaks volumes.

while i completely understand having a great deal of ego involvement in the PUA scene, you're telling us that -we- don't know what women want, which seems kind of counter productive being that, well, we are women and we might actually have some salient insight into what women want, or what flaws there might be in the whole PUA scene, no?

i don't know, for myself personally (and i am admitting to being a pretty strong feminist here) i would specifically be turned off by a man that felt like they needed to put up false pretenses to get my attention, or who was so insecure about his real self that he was anticipating some motor-cycle guy swooping me away at any minute.

i'm really intrigued as to what sort of insights you feel the PUA scene has offered you into the complex female psyche though, because again it seems like you are entirely too focused on gender as opposed to say, individual personalities. i just can't help but feel sad reading your comment, since it just reeks of the us vs. them mentality that could really end up shutting you off from some meaningful interactions later on down the road.

Anonymous said...

Regarding "manipulating women into liking the fake version of oneself"...

The road from being shy to being a social butterfly is hard as hell. Walking up to a complete stranger and starting a conversation can be hard for a shy person. Starting a conversation with a stranger that you are attracted to is EXTREMELY hard for shy guys.

So they arm themselves with some canned lines so they're not tongue tied. Big deal... cut them some slack. Everyone has to start here.

Eventually you get some experience and figure out the shortcomings of the canned lines and canned jokes and move into something more genuine. The canned stuff is valuable and has its place - as training wheels at the beginning.

Of course, some canned lines are better than others. And the ones that have been around forever go under "a perceived tactic is no tactic at all" (that is, if the other party recognizes the tactic, it won't work).

And let me head off those females put-off by the use of "tactics" by reminding them of lipstick, push-up bras, or the peculiar way they back into a guy at a bar and start brushing against him to get his attention (which would be creepy if a guy did it to you).

These are all just attempts to try and get a desired response from the other party.

- Mark

Anonymous said...

i would specifically be turned off by a man ....who was so insecure about his real self that he was anticipating some motor-cycle guy swooping me away at any minute.

That insecurity is one aspect of being shy.

Guys are realizing insecurity is unattractive to women and they need to be confident. "Confident" is easier said than done, hence all the different methods to try and reprogram a guys thinking and make him into a social butterfly that's attractive to women.

it seems like you are entirely too focused on gender as opposed to say, individual personalities.

"Personality" is exactly what pickup is all about. Reinventing your personality to one that is more attractive to women. It's no different than a woman who is frustrated with her success with men trying to be more "flirtatious" or some other alteration to her personality.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I think it's important that men try and understand women. Telling an average guy to "be himself" implies pickup is a complete waste of time and he should not try to improve his interactions with women.

For example, I'm sure you know an average looking guy who a few of your friends are attracted to simultaneously, and another average looking guy who none of your friends are attracted to. The study of that dynamic is what pickup is all about.

Pickup can be a very positive thing for a shy, geeky guy and can improve his relationships greatly.

You have to understand, there's a depth in the pickup community that's staggering. It's not just about cheesy lines. There are a lot of very deep psychological discussions about what it means to be a man and how to interact with the world. It spills over into your job, your boss, other men. It's a complete social study. It's a study of women but also a study of manhood.

There's a lot of crap out there, but there's also some really, REALLY good philosophies and analyses.

- Mark

G M said...

This is great stuff.

But like I originally wrote to Dolly, men have it harder than women on step 1 -- MEETING AND ATTRACTING YOUR PARTNER. Heck, whoever here said that Cosmo tells women what to wear, etc. is completely right. This is "just as pathetic" as giving a guy advice on how to be attractive to women. Women attract guys largely based on their physical appearance. Guys attract women based on how they act and make the woman feel. But in order for a woman to give a guy SHE DOESN'T KNOW the time of day, he needs to be interesting.

Personally I'm not a PUA, but I've got advice for guys in terms of picking up women. I'm more of what PUAs call a "natural". (Or at least, I think so.) So what's wrong with giving good advice and helping people out?

Now I have no idea WHAT THE HELL that whole pirate thing is, the chain letter thing is, or anything else. That's idiotic. This is not what being charming and interesting are about.

I guess there's a lot of idiocy going around in the PUA community.

But a man DOES need to learn how to become a man. And there's nothing wrong with learning this. Women who say men don't have to LEARN how to approach them are either ignorant of men's reality, or really unique. And I just happen to know some unique women :)

Greg

Mia said...

Hey, can someone explain the pirate thing to me? I do not get it either.

Anonymous said...

Interesting debate here.

I was a dork growing up – talking to women nearly made me throw up from nervousness. For me the community has been a Godsend. Scoff all you want, but I know that game works because I use it every day. I used to feel that I’d been sentenced to be a dork for life without parole. Now I can approach women and strike up a conversation with them. I have a blast with it and most of they seem to enjoy it as well. The few that don’t quickly let me know, so I wish them well and get on with my life. For me, it’s simple: now that I have a tiny bit of game, I love being alive in a way that I didn’t before.

Sure we screw things up. You don’t learn to speak French in a day – at some point you’ll walk into a restaurant in Paris and order a velvet diaper. Unlike many men, we’re trying, and there is nobility in that. And frankly, the community is ours. We can make it anything we want, from sincere self-improvement to trying to fuck more women than Mick Jagger. People will like us – or not – for their own reasons, and we’ll cross those bridges on our own terms when we come to them.

And Rick – yeah, it’s a test. Her whole blog is a test these days.

Mia said...

MMM........I love men and all of thier foibles....All of the women everywhere can hate me if you want....Men are so irresistable and c'mon....ya gotta love a man who keeps trying. I am all for Men learning as much as they can about women and even if we are merely conquests for some of you, God Bless and I have had some fun......so far, no burn.

I am so glad that there is a forum for those of us willing to explore and talk about the game.

I have much to learn and I am enjoying every minute of it.

Well....okay there have been some tense moments while I have been waiting for my PUA to call me back, which, by the way is something I am unsure is against the rules....I am excited because the experiment is working so far.

I have been myself and my PUA is being himself.....I think.

Sex rocks, especially if you can be with someone that enjoys pleasuring you and you enjoy pleasuring.

I could be totally out there, but I am here for all of you if you need me, I do not have all the answers.

Anonymous said...

i'm really intrigued as to what sort of insights you feel the PUA scene has offered you into the complex female psyche

I am by no means a representative, but here's a few items from a long list that I personally learned:

1) BODY LANGUAGE. This is huge. Unless a guy is taught what and how to look for it, it's completely invisible to him.

2) BITCH SHIELD: A device used by attractive women in a bar setting to screen out guys who keep hitting on them every 5 minutes. There are various methods to circumvent. To a woman, this device is completely obvious. But men have absolutely no concept of what this is and are shocked or feel completely hurt when they're shot down by this. Guys have no conception of what it's like to be a woman. Imagine a guy hit on every 5 minutes. Unheard of. Except maybe in a gay bar (anyone see that on "How I Met Your Mother"? Classic...)

3) ANTI-SLUT DEFENSE: To "sweep a woman off her feet", a man must lead a woman through attraction to the act of sex without activating her anti-slut defense. One part of this is the female demand for false pretense. For instance, you can't say "want to go back to my place?" without running the risk of setting off her anti-slut defense. Instead you must say, "want to check out my aquarium?" You know what you're really up to and so does she. But with the latter, she complies (if everything is going well). The reason behind it is a topic of debate. I believe somehow the woman is rationalizing it to herself.

4) Attractive woman walks up to attractive guy in a bar. She asks "Want to have sex?" He says "Sure!" Off they go.

Attractive guy walks up to attractive woman in bar. He says "want to have sex?" Drink goes in face.

Perhaps this is absurd and obvious to all, but say you had to explain this to an alien from another planet. What is this? Genetic? Society's programming? Women take time to become attracted? All of the above?

5) Men enjoy logical discussions. Women enjoy emotional discussions. Recognizing logical vs. emotional topics takes a little practice.

6) Women dress up in order to compete with each other and not so much to attract guys.

7) Guys' magazines have pictures of women. Womens' magazines have pictures of women. This relates somehow to number 6.

...and last but not least, I've saved the best for last.

8) Here's a mind-fuck:

dom·i·nant
–adjective
1. ruling, governing, or controlling; having or exerting authority or influence: dominant in the chain of command.
2. occupying or being in a commanding or elevated position.
3. predominant; main; major; chief: Corn is the dominant crop of Iowa.
4. Genetics. of or pertaining to a dominant.


chau·vin·ism
Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind

The implied line here is so fucking fine, it's practically non-existent. You can't dominate without assuming superiority.

So a reasonable man can only come to one conclusion.... WOMEN ARE FUCKING CRAZY!!

So anyway, studying pickup can get into some really intesting stuff!

- Mark

Mia said...

Mark,

Do you like to dominate or be dominated?

I like to be dominated and be submissive. this is natural to me and feels very normal....whatever normal is.....I can do what is asked of me, but I love to be told what to do, this turns me on. I know that the men I have been with are turned on by me turned on and the same holds tru for me...If my Lover is hard and erect, I can get in to a frenzy......which I am hoping will bring my Love closer to what we both wish for. But the thing here is that you have to look past what the expectations are..........I want the man to only think of me and only want me, but this is unrealistic....I know that variety is the spice of life, but where does one draw the line? I know that I can be okay alone and I know that Sex is a release, but at some point there has to be a line drawn...I will please you and I can be pleased by you, but that pesky monogany idea pops in and I get messed up. I can get used to the fact that Men are not as hung up on this as women may be, but c'mon, do you really want your dick sucked by someone who may have sucked 5 dicks before you got there? And why would a woman want to suck 5 dicks? Because maybe we want some validation and companionship that is compassionate and safe.

Anonymous said...

Mia,

You're not alone. I think most women feel most comfortable as submissive. And dominant comes most naturally to me.

But I honestly think the feminist movement fucked up a lot of guys. It screwed up my head and had to un-learn via pickup.

I think the topic of feminism is completely accepted socially while "male domination / female submissive" behavior discussion is taboo.

Am I wrong on this?

The pickup community was the first time I'd come across the male dominant as CORRECT male behavior.

I think women really are at odds with themselves between feminism in their logical minds and submission in their genetics.

My eyes have been opened to this for a couple of years now and I'm still amazed by it. And it IS very sexy to know there's a whole submissive thing going on beneath the surface of every woman. And I can't say why for sure. It's my genetics I guess.

Regarding your question, I personally have no use for virgins. They're terrible in bed. A woman with experience is my personal preference. No training involved and she might even teach me something! I can't say how many guys share that opinion though. Maybe a lot, maybe just a few. I honestly don't know.

- Mark

Anonymous said...

Mark:
So a reasonable man can only come to one conclusion.... WOMEN ARE FUCKING CRAZY!!

and after reading your response i could just as easily reply that MEN ARE FUCKING MORONS!! but that isn't the case, it's usually subjective.

nothing you wrote is even remotely valid in terms of dealing with women unless they act a very specific way.

it seems that thanks to pick up, you are capable of understanding a very specific subset of the female population, being those who ascribe pretty seriously to traditional gender roles...maybe you are really interested in scoring with women who have preconcieved hang ups about sexuality and social roles, and if that is the case, i hope it works out for you... in general what you are pointing out are really stagnant and boring stereotypes...

i mean seriously, if someone invited me over after a night of drinking to see their fishtank, i'd have to be brain damaged not to realize that we weren't going home to discuss the wonders of ichtheology, and i'd have to be pretty lame or hypocritical to only feel comfortable with myself under the pretense of such a pathetic smoke screen. i mean, wouldn't you rather get it on with a woman who is empowered or self actualized to the point of being capable of admitting she wants to fuck you? and wants to fuck you for who -you- are, as opposed to some corny line or mode?


i think what bothers me about all of this is that it seems like you're working to manipulate women who need to be manipulated in terms of sex...i don't see how that can be fulfilling. though again, no one here has been able to address my question as to whether or not these techniques are being applied to women you want a relationship with, so maybe there is something i am not getting.

also, for the record, feminism literally is the desire for social, political and economic equality between men and women. this doesn't necessarily relate to one on one behavioral stuff...a woman can be a feminist and still be attracted to a dominant male...it just means she wants the same sort of respect he gets for doing the same job.

Anonymous said...

feminism literally is the desire for social, political and economic equality between men and women. this doesn't necessarily relate to one on one behavioral stuff...a woman can be a feminist and still be attracted to a dominant male...it just means she wants the same sort of respect he gets for doing the same job.

WOW! Ya know, I hadn't even considered that angle. Thanks! Seriously! Feminism seemed so all-or-nothing, I never even thought of sectioning a piece out. I guess that's "feminism, except at home."

But I think I do have to go off and think about how you process that in your mind though. That is to say, if it's a consistent logic.

Whatever! I guess people can be dominant in some ways and submissive in others.

WOW! Even feminists are submissive! My eyes open wider and wider every day.

In regards to the sex thing, I really think 99.9% of the guys in the community are looking for some badly lacking validation, and then once they get it, they go into "looking for wife / girlfriend" mode using their enhanced techniques - much to the happiness of all involved.

As we all know, looking for a person you want to bind yourself to legally, financially, and sexually is no small task.

For the most part, pickup deals with eliminating awkwardness in the first 10 dates. After that, you go into relationship mode.

When I first started dating after a long term relationship had ended, I kept trying to jump from first date straight into relationship mode (where I felt most comfortable).

Needless to say, that didn't go over very well.

There is a dance that must happen and there are rules. Women want fun, mystery, and a touch of romance.

Then when once you get them home and they're completely enthralled by you...


.... RIP OFF THEIR CLOTHES AND SMACK THEM ON THE ASS!!

;)

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Clarissa, there's a ton you're not getting. You probably haven't dated many women. Until you do, don't be so sure you know everything about what makes women tick. Not that I know, not that Mark knows, but I can promise you that very intelligent, "self-actualized" women do things on dates that you would not believe.

What's really funny is that you're thinking like a clueless AFC guy. Until they learn otherwise, it doesn't make any SENSE to guys that an intelligent, self-actualized woman won't come back to a guy's place without an excuse that both know is phony. So he waits for her to communicate that she's ready to be kissed, hoping that eventually she will tell him that she has decided the fucking can now begin.

He'll be waiting a while.

And to the anonymous guy whose post mentioned the velvet diaper -- you're a hell of a writer, and a really insightful guy. It was a privilege to read your post.

Anonymous said...

Your blog is good. U r a gr8 writer, but anyways try this out 4 your depression.

1. Prani Killing or NLP

2. Meditation

3. Go through Dr. Paul stuff.. http://doctorpaul.net

Anonymous said...

Clarissa,

I have to get your opinion on something.

Before launching into this, I'll say that I've been logically behind feminism my whole life with some kind of internal conflict in regards to male dominant fantasy.

Having said that, here's a hypothetical model:

A woman is a corporate executive. Very strong. Works hard all day.

Her husband is a stay at home dad. He has dinner waiting when she gets home.

QUESTION:

Is this a workable long-term model?

In every instance of dominant woman relationship I've ever seen, the woman has become angry at the man. She's kind of bitchy towards him.

I think this setup rubs women the wrong way genetically.

I haven't seen the exact setup outlined here. And I've only seen a few female dominant relationships - at least since I started taking interest in this dynamic. In each case, the woman doesn't seem very happy.

This example seemed to me to be the logical conclusion of feminism.

And you may argue that women only want to be equal and not more. But if so, why not?

I don't mean to get under your skin, and logically I buy everything you're saying. I bought into feminism my whole life.

But the reality we (pickup) see in the field is completely different.

The dom/sub dynamic being discussed would seem to be COMPLETELY contradictory to what has to be the core assumptions behind feminism - that being men and women are completely equal.

I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps I'm becoming congruent and what you are suggesting about feminism (submissive at home) is cause for internal conflict in the feminist community.

I've also been working on a theory that female submissive behavior is a genetic response. That is, mothers don't teach their daughters what to do when the "alpha male" comes around. It just happens. An evolutionary thing.

Mia said...

Okay......you are all getting the wrong idea.......If it feels good, it is good.

I want the men in my life to make me feel good.........I want to make the men in my life feel good.......if we both tell each other how to do this sexually and romantically, where is the problem? except for STDs and not wearing condoms........Guilty.......I have not ever had sex while my partner was wearing a condom.

I believe that when an Alpha male comes around, an Alpha Female will respond and the outcome will only be good.

Anonymous said...

anon -

i think the biggest misnomer about feminism is the idea that a woman needs to be dominant to be a feminist. unfortunatley though, it does seem like we have to work twice as hard to garner half the respect...sort of like how an assertive businesswomen often ends up being seen as a bitch where as equally assertive male executive isn't even given a second thought...and this is something i sometimes run into in my workplace even.

sort of like how many times people expect feminists to be almost masculinized...just because i dye my long hair, shave my legs, and work out every day doesn't negate the fact that i expect equality, you know?

i think anything can end up being taken to an extreme and as a result end up getting twisted (sort of like andrea dworkin and her group of radical feminists are to feminism what PETA or ELF are to animal/environmental rights)

i don't necessarily agree with the genetics angle when it comes to social roles or wants though... i think the bulk of it is more based on social expectations vs biological imperitive. not that we can ever expect to have some sort of genderless society, but i do think that with these constructs out there that work to widen the divide between men and women to a near planetary scale, we just reaffirm our superficial differences...the problem is, to do a longitudinal study on gender based behaviors, it would cost a TON of money and you'd need to have people conducting a study that would literally last years to observe what gender based traits are inherent vs learned. One interesting medical case that touched on this somewhat was that of David Reimer (seriously, google him, it's a really fascinating insight into gender and behavior) which does lend itself toward the idea that some behaviors are in fact influened by hormones and chromisomes and such...however, i guess one could argue that certain behaviors aren't hugely defining when it comes to the entirety of a person (eg, does being aggressive mean that one is entitled to certain things based solely on the fact they are aggressive?)

i know for me & my husband, we're equal with the exception of income (although we try to remain completely autonomous when it comes to our finances). he is a senior software engineer and i'm an entry level accountant and as such there is a pretty large divide in what we make, and it does make me cranky that i can't keep pace with him in that arena, though i would probably be far crankier if we were both software engineers and he outranked me pay-wise based on his gender...the fact that he makes dinner for the two of us more often than not usually makes me pretty psyched though, since he's a really good cook. i mean, he's also way stronger than me because he lifts weights where i'm more into doing cardio, but i don't necessarily overthink these things.

i think what it comes down to for me is the fear that when pingeon-holing men or women or feminists of whatever into really strict definitions, we're limiting our expectations of them...because i do think that there are feminists who are focusing their ideaology towards the social scale and others who focus it on their private lives, but i don't think it needs to be static...there are days where i am a total bitch no doubt, and days where i totally want my hair stroked and to be told everything is going to be ok, but those behaviors exist regardless of my personal politics.

i'm sorry if that is insanely verbose, i just really love how gender politics influence society and our interactions, especially when it comes to sex.

i just think it's interesting because speaking for myself, if i wasn't married, and i was hitting it off with a guy in a bar, i'd be much more psyched if he said we should go back to his place without feeling the need to make the situation more palatable by adding on "to see my fishtank"

Anonymous said...

nothing you wrote is even remotely valid in terms of dealing with women unless they act a very specific way.

it seems that thanks to pick up, you are capable of understanding a very specific subset of the female population, being those who ascribe pretty seriously to traditional gender roles...


Clarissa,

Just my opinion, but I think this is where you are going wrong.

You start with the assumption that male/female distinctions are learned. That society/family/etc teaches what it is to be male or female.

Personally, I think that view is completely incorrect, and most of the research is showing that to be the case.

There is plenty of research indicating that the male and female brains are indeed wired differently at birth, and that many if not most male/female differences are the results of biology/evolutionary psychology, and not "learned gender roles".

I'm not sure I consider myself a "member of the PUA community", but I've spent the past 1 1/2 studying PUA/seduction/etc, after many years of sporadic success with women and dating. My ability to attract women has skyrocketed since learning many of the PUA tactics/techniques.

I don't think that is the result of encountering a specific subset of women, but more of tapping into the behavior patterns and personality traits that women innately deep inside their programming find attractive.

Anonymous said...

In response to the hypothetical stay at home dad setup:

Whatever the guy does during the day, whether he is the stay at home dad or the strong executive, is probably irrelevant to the situation. If the guy can't create chemistry after dinner, it's doomed.

Anonymous said...

Whatever the guy does during the day, whether he is the strong executive or the stay at home dad, is probably irrelevant to the situation. If the guy can't make chemistry after dinner, then it's doomed.

G M said...

Who cares Dolly probably stopped reading after the 10th comment and now I'll do the same :)

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:43 PM:

there is actually a large amount of debate in regards to how much of gender roles are inherent vs. learned. the main problem is that it would be prohibitively expensive to do the longitudinal studies to prove it one way or another. while brain imaging has come a long way in the past few years with fmris and pet scans, there is no great concrete evidence that brain difference are universal or what sort of things can be attributed to them - the medical and psychological communities have been repeatedly changing their stances on that. in general our knowledge of the brain is still fairly rudimentary. don't forget, just a few decades ago we thought lobotomies were the great depression panacea.

from what i've read, cognitive differences have been suggested but that's a far way off from being concretely proven. there are differences in our brains, but they don't necessarily point out that women are inherently submissive or that we like to pretend we're going to a guys house for fishtanks instead of sex. the problem is is that since we are in fact products of our society, it is next to impossible to have any sort of uncontaminated longitudinal study to see how people would react with no societal influence to help them form their gender identity. obviously with things like GID coupled with ever advancing imaging technology this will change, but as it stands we don't have any definitive answer stating that our behaviors are wholly cultural or physiological.
----------

one last thought from me, after having read some PUA stuff online, is that i find the language y'all use to be really offensive. it's all bitches and sluts and chicks and babes and girls...it really seems to deviate from this whole "aw shucks we're just shy dorky guys trying to navigate through this vast and scary dating pool" concept that's being sold here into something that is really derogatory towards women. hopefully that isn't always the case, but it seems really ick.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I get it -- women are unique and magnificent individuals, but men are identical pathetic boors. Thanks!

Here's an article in today's NY Times explaining how women's brains are different. It's by a unique and magnificent individual:
http://tinyurl.com/ybgrcl

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:29, I mentioned the velvet diaper. I prefer to sign posts but half a bottle of Bordeaux got the better of me and I hit “Publish” too soon. Thank you for your kind words.

Mia, God bless you. It really is about being the man in the arena whose face is marred with dust and sweat and blood.

Clarissa, you covered a lot of ground. Yes, words give the extremists away. I hate “target” especially.

Community guys say that women don’t know what they want because every time we give them what conventional wisdom says they want, a version of the motorcycle-guy scenario follows. It’s as sure as death and taxation. Asking women what women want seems like a smart move but it fails utterly, too.

On the other hand, what Mark mentioned about body language, shields, ASD, the masculine vs. the feminine mind, dominance, and the mechanics of attraction has been proven time and time again. (It’s probably being proven again somewhere as you read this.) Our collective experience includes a sample of women that probably runs to the tens if not hundreds of thousands. These things do not apply equally to all women and may not apply to you. But they are astonishingly accurate when applied to women in general and that makes them a great place to start.

If they weren’t, we would find what was and use that.


Silver

SecondarySight said...

Clarissa,

To answer your question about what I am looking for, I am really looking for people who I hit it off with. Once I find I have chemistry with someone, then I will see whether it looks like something casual would work best with her, or something more serious. Unfortunately, right now I am only meeting two types of girls: girls I really like and have crushes on... but who are in relationships so we just end up being friends, and girls who pursue me but only want to hook up.

Do women know what they want? I don't know. What I do know is that what many women say they want seems at odds with their behavior. Many men, like Mark, will consequently conclude that women don't know what they want (and some will conclude that women are deliberately lying about what they want). I think those conclusions are a bit hasty, but I do think it's clear that those women are unable to communicate what they want to men in ways that men can understand. This is not entirely women's fault for explaining badly, or men's fault for "not getting it": a lot of the problem is that the very terms we use are so ambiguous (like "nice guy" for instance).

You say that PUA knowledge might help Mark succeed in understanding a certain subset of women: those who ascribe to traditional gender roles and have hangups around sexuality. Well, that really isn't much of a strike against Mark's understanding of women, because you have just described the vast majority of heterosexual women. (Yes, there are a minority of women who don't quite fit this template, and Mark has failed to account for this.)

You ask "wouldn't you rather get it on with a woman who is empowered or self actualized to the point of being capable of admitting she wants to fuck you?" Of course! But where do you find these women? What you are describing sounds like a fantasy to me. There are lots of things I would prefer to have in women. When I find these things, I am thrilled to bits. As you can see me harping on above, I do believe that there are women with atypical personality types that cannot be dealt with using the same cookie-cutter techniques. These women are just so rare that it isn't realistic for me to rely on being able to meet them (and when I do, they are often with someone). Guys, even attractive ones, cannot afford to be as picky as attractive women can.

I think the difficulty is that you are looking at the behaviors of pickup artists and then judging them without taking into account why they do what they do. You look at the acronyms and techniques and think, "how weird and dorky!" But you also have to consider the reason for that approach: it is the best thing there is for teaching social skills to geeky guys. You look at our models for understanding women and think "how generalized and stereotyped! why don't these guys just go for self-actualized and empowered women who aren't like that?" The problem is that there just aren't enough of these women to go round, because there are more guys willing to be sexually passive than there are women willing to be sexual assertive.

P.S. It may be true that there are major cognitive sex differences, but you are correct that the research so far isn't conclusive on this matter. There is no question that different selective pressures have influenced male and female brains, and that male and female brains differ in structure, but it is unclear exactly how those differences manifest in cognition.

Anonymous said...

"And let me head off those females put-off by the use of "tactics" by reminding them of lipstick, push-up bras, or the peculiar way they back into a guy at a bar and start brushing against him to get his attention (which would be creepy if a guy did it to you)".

I have no problem with trying to get a girl you like interested in you. I have a problem with trying to get a girl (or multiple girls) interested in you by making her think she has a chance at a real relationship when all you are interested in is sex.
Most girls who wear push up bras and get guys interested aren't going to go after a one night stand in this manner. Yes I know some will, but I would disagree with those women in the same way.

That being said, if you are certain all the girl wants is sex as well and its mutual, I wouldn't even argue with that. (though I don't personally feel comfortable with casual sex)
It is taking advantage of a disparity in goals that I feel is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Yes, on the surface there are all kinds of cheap and cheesy pickup lines. You have to remember the community is made up of both men and boys. Some literally come across this material when they are just starting to grow pubic hair. There are plenty of postings by "boys".

But like most things, you have to dig through the dirt a bit to get to the gems. And some of it you sort of come up with on your own.

For instance, I was thinking about "leading" this morning.

One must be careful so as to not be controlling, obsessive, or even exhibit jealous behavior.

I think it's safer to conceptualize leading as holding a position of power rather than actually ordering people around.

As we all know, women are endless with wishes and demands. How do we navigate this?

I think a child/parent model is easier to analyze.

A child will seek the compliance of a parent for something they desire and is very happy if the parent agrees. The child isn't necessarily "leading" unless this happens over and over and over and there are no logical boundaries whatsoever. The child will feel that they are leading if it becomes apparent that the child's wishes are being put ahead of the parent's.

The same goes for women. Comply with your woman when it makes sense.

But when you're really not in the mood - DO NOT GIVE IN!

She will put up a stink at first. And this actually both expresses her disappointment and a shit-test all wrapped in one. This can be a pain in the ass since it's easier to just give in than to argue. But if you DON'T give in, she'll actually have more trust in you in the long run - just like a child is happier if they have boundaries.

I don't really mean to compare women to children, but I feel the child / parent relationship is easier to see and understand. This too is a dominant / submissive relationship with the parent assuming leadership.

Although some women may be absolutely appalled at the thought of men walking around with a child/parent model in their heads as they figure out how to deal with them, but I think correct behavior for the "leader" is more apparent in this model.

So when your woman asks you for something (or to do something - like go somewhere or something), make the decision like your child is asking you for something. Don't talk to her like a child, but be firm against her testing like you would be firm against your child's tantrum.

Comply when it makes sense. Don't comply when it doesn't.

- Mark

Anonymous said...

So anyway, to return to the topic at hand...

Logan and Realtor Rick, take what Dolly's saying with a grain of salt. This public flogging she gave you (a bit over the top) could be enough to completely derail a guy off the PUA path.

Get your head screwed on straight with this one. This is just another victory because not only did you learn something, but we all did thanks to a really great post by spirit fingers.

So I extend my thanks to both of you and say KEEP AT IT! GO! GO! GO!

Because after all, only men can teach you to be men. And the path is there in the pickup community. Take the stuff that makes sense to you. Discount what doesn't.

A woman can't tell you how to be a man. They can only "sense" men. They have it patterned on their DNA, but they can't define it.

Women will lash out at you like this when you make a mistake. It's just another victory for all of us because we all learned something.

STAY ON TARGET, SOLDIER!!! STAY ON TARGET, GOD DAMN IT!!!

DON'T YOU WUSS OUT ON US!!

- Mark

Anonymous said...

This is the equivalent of having a drink thrown in your face.

Laugh about it. Move on.

- Mark

freefade3876 said...

The sun shone having no alternative on the nothing new...

Anonymous said...

I love how everyone assumes that the guy posting as "Realtor Rick" is actually the guy that Dolly named Realtor Rick. I doubt he would call himself that.

Losing a pirate-themed bet would involve ninjas somehow, in case anyone's curious.

Anonymous said...

...said freefade, missing the irony of his own post.

Anonymous said...

Oops; I guess that actually was Realtor Rick. Dag, yo.

Auntie Mom said...

Holy shit, Doll! Way to get people talking! THIS should be the angle of your book!

Are PUAs actually picking up women or girls? Is the audience they're aiming for the Cosmo sorority? Are they searching for love, sex, or personal validation? Would the kind of woman someone claimed doesn't exist in one comment (confident, no pretenses, open to your true personality) actually respond to PUA tactics?

And, in the end, are we all more alike than we let on?

I wonder what the demographics of the PUA truly are. I wonder if the suave confidence that many women seek - our Cary Grants and Clark Gables - is something that grows in time with maturity. When does "the line" stop being false? When can an ice breaker not involve an entire personality change?

I hope someone does write a book about this. I agree with the idea of helping men become confident in this world of ambiguous gender roles, but not at the expense of an actual human connection. I mean the connection in the minds and hearts and not just in our pants.

Oh, and just for the record, men's magazines have pictures of men. Lots of them. Ever flipped through a GQ? I've got a subscription. Good articles.

Anonymous said...

GQ is for gays, silly wabbit.

Auntie Mom said...

GQ is for gentlemen, wraskaly wabbit. Did you read the title? For those who don't want to join the PUA cult*, it can teach you how to dress well and make a martini. 007 shit.

Trust me - the fashion questions in there are from straight men. Gay men wouldn't wrestle with such foibles.

And it really does have great articles.

~k
* ;)

Anonymous said...

Hey Mark,

I really like your posts, especially the one with all the numbers. I think you should have a blog!

I started looking at PUA stuff about 6 months before "The Game" came out. When I first found the acronyms listing I was just shocked. And then a couple of hours later I went through it reading more calmly and I realized that maybe it's not on the same scale but I have done a lot of that stuff in landing my boyfriends. I just don't have acronyms for it. So who am I to judge a guy for doing it?

Anyway the PUA stuff is absolutely fascinating. I would encourage any woman reading PUA materials to keep in mind that most of these guys start from a place of intense pain and confusion. Read their stuff with compassion in your heart and seek to understand before you judge.

Becca

Stretch said...

I tend to agree with the commenter who felt guys would be better off reading a little more of magazines like GQ and less of the latest lines or routines posted on message boards. Being "playful" with a woman doesn't have to mean "childish." One big problem I have with the community is that too many guys in it begin to equate acting with class and grace with acting "beta." The world already has enough people in it trying to dominate rather than learn and understand.

That said, most of the guys who take the trouble to learn about attraction do need to learn what types of conversation women are likely to find engaging and interesting, so the lines and routines can be a useful starting point. They just shouldn't lose sight of EVERYTHING their parents taught them about how to behave...just those parts that are keeping them from getting what they want in life.

zosnut said...

Please keep in mind that you can sign your comments even if you are not on Blogger, by using the 'Other' radio button.

The self-appointed temporary moderator.

freefade3876 said...

i jerked off three times yesterday...i sincerely hope that tasty morsel doesn't go astray somehow prior to the freakin apocalypse resulting from 83 POSTS TO A SINGLE ENTRY...................

thanks for the inspiration PUA-ville

Anonymous said...

"In short, the problem is that I can't go up to a girl, "be myself," and have her like me because the barriers described above dictate that she is turned off to the idea of getting to know me. The solution is challenging her intellect and reality by shattering the rules and opening her mind to wanting to know me. Then I can be myself."

That is quite definitely the stupidest thing I've ever read. Who the fuck says you can't be yourself? Why would you not want to be? Being anything other than yourself means you're a poser, a liar, and insecure . I'm glad Dolly called out this Jackass and doesn't put up with common guys. Every schmuck thinks just because he's read "the Game", it translates into him understanding women and him being some gigantic pimp.

Being YOUR TRUE SELF and attracting women is what it's all about, not being some wannabe Style.

Get a life loser.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. Maybe you should jerk off three times like freefade -- might help you with some of that rage you're projecting out.

rebel leader said...

Hey Dolly! wow what a thread.

Hey, you want to sing some karaoke in a few weeks? I'll be in town for my annual christmas get together with pops in brooklyn between xmas and new years. I miss you. I'd love to hear you sing "voices carry" by 'til tuesday.

SecondarySight said...

anonymous said:
Being YOUR TRUE SELF and attracting women is what it's all about, not being some wannabe Style.

But what is one's "true self?" And what if one's "true self" does't attract women? This is just incredibly vague. If you know what your "true self" is, then good for you. You seem to view "the self" as some kind of rigid, unchanging instruction manual that everyone has to follow. Otherwise, they are breaking the rules and somehow being dishonest.

I don't find this view of the self either accurate or useful. I see the self as a set of habits, a set of narratives we tell ourselves, and a set of things we invest ourselves in. All of these things can and do change over time, and sometimes they need to be changed intentionally.

Anonymous said...

My real self used to make women call 911.

Changing it was a REALLY good idea.

Mark said...

Right on! Winners are MADE, not born.

Otherwise, we'd have socially elite kindergarten-ers running around that could all make the perfect martini.

Take two identical twins and have one raised solely by the mother and the other raised solely by their father. You're going to end up with two individuals that are radically different in their attitudes about women.

I would suggest the one raised by the father will have much more success with women sexually and the one raised by the mother will be stuck in the "friend zone" his entire life. All women will like him (love him, in fact), but none will want to screw him.

For instance, both twins are picked on in school. The mother will say "don't get hurt, johnny". The father will say "punch him in the fucking head!".

Not to advocate violence, but a woman wants a man who can handle himself if the need arises. Women are physically smaller, they know it, and they can be a little fearful of men. A man has no problem walking into a bar by himself, but women travel in packs. An extraordinarily beautiful woman is ESPECIALLY fearful and needs alpha males around to protect her.

If the mother-raised twin comes across the PUA path, he'll at least have a chance.

And if he works hard, he can even steal the beautiful woman right out of the pack of alpha males protecting her - with the approval of everyone involved.

;)

Mark said...

So once again "be yourself" is NOT good advice for the mother-raised twin.

This guy needs to be COMPLETELY reprogrammed right down to his core beliefs.

Becoming really good with women takes YEARS of work and study.

So whenever a woman says "be yourself" it really means:

"Be yourself so we can easily tell the men from the boys and throw you by the wayside if you're one of the boys"

It makes their job a lot easier but is NOT helpful advice.

Hence, women don't really know what they're talking about.

When a woman says "I'm a woman. I can advise a guy as to what women want."

...no they can't.

They'll say "I want him to be nice, and treat me well, blah, blah, blah."

..while in their head, they are envisioning Brad Pitt - already an alpha male!

THEY CAN ONLY PATTERN AGAINST THE ALPHA MALE. THEY HAVE NO IDEA ON HOW TO GET YOU THERE.

Dolly said...

Oh, for fuck's sake, I never said, "be yourself" I said, "have a personality beyond cheesy routines." I'm not saying the lines don't work, I'm saying that some of them are dumb, and that you should learn to calibrate. God forbid somebody makes waves or criticizes one or two seduction strategies.

realtor rick said...

So this WAS a shit test.

I thought so.

Mark said...

The reverse is also true. Imagine a man trying to teach a girl to be feminine. He'd put her through some military "estrogen bootcamp".

I can just picture him yelling at her:

"THINK EMOTIONAL THOUGHTS!!!"

(he has no idea how this works)

"CURTSEY GRACEFULLY!!!"

She tries, then he says "No! Like this!" Tries to show her, and falls over.

Yet he knows feminine within a 1/2 second of seeing it. It's engrained on his genetics. But he can't train a girl to do it...

...unless he's gay.


Dolly -

I know what you mean. And I realize I'm going way over the top from a female perspective. But a lot of PUA guys read your blog.

I think "Have a personality" implies "show your true personality" which implies "be yourself".

Which isn't so good for a guy that women find dull.

Personality in itself is fluid - the Dolly that interacts with her mother is not the same personality that interacts with Willow, and on and on.

There was also a lot of talk about "social robots" (not necessarily by you). I just see these as guys who are starting out.

My fear is a novice PUA may read this and go "Ah see! "Little sister" doesn't work!" or even worse "Pickup is a complete waste of time!".

They both work very well. My advice to PUA's is pay attention to your results. If she seems to be getting annoyed, you may be better off just ejecting. Give it a chance, and if the "little sister" thing doesn't seem to be working for you, try something else. It might not be the kind of thing that's congruent with your personality.

I guess it just comes with the territory. Slam a (relatively) proven PUA method, and it's going to set off a discussion of some type.

I will say, I think this is a method that's geared towards younger women.

freefade3876 said...

heavy petting and grilled cheeses for all

Mark said...

I know I've overstayed my welcome, but just one last overview for novices and interested women. Everyone else, skip this post.

1) Cheesy pickup lines - everyone starts here. Everyone's looking for the one sentence that will get them laid. It's not that easy, but at least you'll be starting conversations.

2) Methods - each are geared towards an "alpha male" personalty. Some examples:

D'Angelo - cocky/funny. "Little sister" falls in here. Dominant, teasing, and supposed to be fun for all involved. The woman is supposed to be laughing and beaming. If she's not, you're not doing it right.

Mystery Method - adventure man talking about himself

Jugger method - conversational method with a touch of self-deprecation to lower her defenses

Gunwitch - He-man dominant motorcycle guy method

... and there are many others. A guy can spend a lot of money trying to find one that is congruent with his personality. Of course, they all promise the world so you can't really tell until you get into it.

3) Philosophical - after following the steps of the method that works for you, you have the understand the IDEA behind the method. Who is this guy?

4) Deep reprogramming - complete psychological overhaul

Then *ding!* you're done. You're an alpha male!

...yeah, right...

I personally think it never ends as no one is ever 100% socially graceful.

SecondarySight said...

Dolly, I at least didn't think you were saying "just be yourself." I was responding to one of the Anon's above. I heard your main message and thought it was accurate.

Dolly said...

Rebel Leader,
Not sure if I'll be in town, but email or text me.

Everyone else,
Let's see if we can get this baby to 100 comments! Just because.

V said...

But what is one's "true self?" And what if one's "true self" does't attract women?"

That's the whole point of self discovery. You can't expect one person to have all of the answers. If your true self doesn't attract women, that's fine if you make changes, I'm not saying that you can't. What I am saying is that it's lame to copy someone else's style all together. That's what you are effectively doing when you take EVERYTHING from a book and don't change it up, which is what was done above.

"You seem to view "the self" as some kind of rigid, unchanging instruction manual that everyone has to follow."

Not at all. In fact it's quite the opposite. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but personally, I'm always in a perpetual state of change. The way you defined your "true self", I'll agree with you. However, since I have a different definition, I won't.

Anonymous said...

i am just doing my part to get this sucker to #100

i think my "problem" (outside of the gender stuff which i just don't see myself getting over) with the PUA scene is this:

once upon a time i briefly dated this guy, and at first he seemed perfect...he knew the right buttons to push, the right things to say, the right clothes to wear...superficially he was awesome.

however, the more i got to know him, the deeper the cracks in his edifice seemed to run, and over time the real him began to sort of pale in comparison to the mythology he had built up around himself, and i lost interest. i think he was honestly more of a pathological liar than an artist, though i'm also pretty sure that he could give you an impressive analysis of the Seducer's Diary by Søren Kierkegaard and how it related to his dating MO (in general i'd actually love to know what pua's think of this book since it's pretty much a play by play on this man's quest to make a woman love him of her own accord and then leave him of her own accord too).

i wonder, when i read about modes and styles and all of this, if there is a similar risk y'all run in the pua game...because at least in the case of my shady ex, i bet that had he been more forthright in the first place, the "flaws" (outside of the pathological thing) that ended up turning me off wouldn't have, since i would've seen them from the start, and on their own they weren't dealbreakers, it was more the efforts he went to cover them up that were...not unlike when dolly met the pua @ the party and eventually left when she realized he was out right lying about some stuff.

which is not to say that i am equating PUA stuff with lying, but it does seem so deliberate and predetermined, and that seems like it could take out a lot of the fun and "realness" of meeting and connecting with someone. because i know that if i were interacting with someone and i thought "wow, they are so clever, this is so much fun" and i realized later on they were using some variation of a script on me, i'd be pretty bummed.

OK - GO 100!!!!!

Anonymous said...

100!

Boo-yah

Mike said...

which is not to say that i am equating PUA stuff with lying, but it does seem so deliberate and predetermined, and that seems like it could take out a lot of the fun and "realness" of meeting and connecting with someone. because i know that if i were interacting with someone and i thought "wow, they are so clever, this is so much fun" and i realized later on they were using some variation of a script on me, i'd be pretty bummed.

Clarissa,

This is interesting commentary, especially coming from you since you seem to be skeptical of innate gender differences.

I've found that the essence of your criticism here is something that is uniquely female.

Women seem to place a high priority on the "realness", spontaneity, or "naturalness" of an interaction. Things have to "just happen". Things have to "just be right" instead of careful planning and preparation to ensure they end up right.

What difference does it make if the guy is using some elements of planning, scripting, etc. in the interaction if you are having fun and enjoying the interaction, and it is helping the guy to generate attraction?

Why is "deliberate and predetermined" such a negative? And why does that somehow automatically take away from the "realness" of the situation.

If you are a teacher you plan and rehearse your lecture to students. If you are giving a business presentation, you plan and rehearse that as well. Why should'nt a guy plan and rehearse interactions with women to improve the end result?

Are men inherently more planning and goal oriented then women? Whereas women are more oriented in the emotion of the moment? I don't know. I'm not sure of the answer. But your automatic negativity to planning, deliberateness, etc. certainly points that way.

I can say with little doubt that the overwhelming majority of guys wouldn't give two shits if a women is using certain tactics or scripts in an interaction, unless it is for the purpose of flat out lying or deception.

Most guys would say it wouldn't bother them in the least, if the end result is an enjoyable interaction that leads to a positive end result.

Mike said...

Just to expand a little bit on my previous post.

I've been dating this girl for about 11 months, and we've been exclusive boyfriend/girlfriend for about 8 months.

To this day, I still use some elements of "planning and deliberateness" in interactions with here. I still use PUA tactics, techniques, and communication methods to reinforce her attraction and committment to me.

Is it "natural"? Is it "real"? I don't even think in those terms. I just know they work, and that if I had never studied PU I would still be completely oblivious and ignorant to them.

Here is an example. I am not a naturally flirtatious guy, and playful teasing doesn't come "naturally" or "spontaneously" to me. I have to force myself through deliberate planning to be flirtatious or tease.

Yet I know most women love flirtation and playful teasing, because it builds anticipation.

Should I be the "real" or "natural" me who is more of a serious intellectual type and doesn't flirt? Or should I carefully plan, rehearse, and be deliberate in initial interactions to be flirtatious and playful?

Why should I be at a disadvantage to the guy to whom these things come "naturally"?

Anonymous said...

Many women think in terms of "should." He should do this, he should feel this way, he should love me.

I should be driving home right now. I should be wearing underwear. I should be taller.

Should can cause a lot of problems if you let it.



Silver

Transformer said...

When we get to 108, we'll have to hit the reset button.

Mark said...

Clarissa,

Ideally what a guy should do is find a method that is only a slight tweak to his current personality.

If a guy happened to have lived part of his life in Africa and went sky diving last summer, then Mystery Method will show him how to leverage those things into being fascinating.

But if he really hasn't done anything exceptional, then he'd have to resort to lying or using other people's stories to make that method work. He should avoid methods that aren't congruent to his personality.

However, this is harder than it seems. Those people selling the methods are in it to make money and so imply that their method is "universal". So a guy spends his hard earned money on a method, not realizing there's another method more suited to him. Guys using the wrong method come off as weird.

But there are universal concepts for all PUAs. For example, the phrase "respect women" that probably started in feminism.

A guy has to get his head on straight that this means "don't shit on women". It does NOT mean, put them on a pedestal the way you "respect" your hero who did some amazing feat that you respect him for.

Respect (in terms of how men see respect) must be EARNED. It should never be given out freely.

A beautiful woman was either born that way or paid a plastic surgeon to make her that way. She hasn't done ANYTHING to earn your respect.

So don't let her wig you out and make you all nervous. She may very well be the stupidest bitch on the planet.

Some ideas like this might come across as rude or crass. But you have to remember that a lot of guys can become awestruck by women they find attractive and become nervous. Mixing in a few rude thoughts will give him some backbone and level him out. The goal is slightly dominant, not asshole.

Anonymous said...

Dolly:

PUA Logan has no game. He gets laid, he doesn't form relationships with NORMAL women.

My friend went to a silent party with him, and told me that he "faunted" that he was a PUA. Hardly game.

The girls that he interacted with ended up hanging out with my friend after all his AMOGing attempts.

This is what happens when BEGINNERS end up trying to be PUA's and INSTRUCTORS. I totally see why you left "Project Manhattan". Geez, get a life Logan. Didn't he get kicked out of Mystery's Lounge?

What a joke.

Madalayne said...

The party has died down, but I'll toss in my pennies anyway -

"Women seem to place a high priority on the "realness", spontaneity, or "naturalness" of an interaction. Things have to "just happen". Things have to "just be right" instead of careful planning and preparation to ensure they end up right."

Or at least the women you know, anyway. Many of the menfolk in my circle would fit the above description. They also resist learning pick-up because they *do* want it to just happen. I know many and many a man who are more romantic and idealistic about love than I have ever been...

Anonymous said...

I know a man who is extremely romantic and idealistic about love. He believes that God makes the perfect lover for each of us, and all he has to do is wait for her to appear. He will never do anything so cynical as to modify his behavior just to be more appealing to women. But he has gone five years without a relationship.

Of course, it doesn't help that he's 44, still living with his mom, and still has to ask her if he can use the car or the cellphone.

Not everything just "happens." Luck favors the prepared, you know?

Madalayne said...

I agree completely. My point is that this kind of starry-eyed romanticism isn't a sex-linked women-only mentality.

Anna said...

This whole community is new to me. I just recently found out about it...when I found out my boyfriend is a part of it. I discovered he'd been lying to me about what he was doing and seeing women behind my back. (He's explained he loves to experiment with the art of pickup, not actually sleep with these women).
Can someone explain this to me? What's a PUA supposed to do when he actually gets a girlfriend? Stop being a PUA? Keep being one and lie to his new girl? Or, as I wish had happened in my case, talk openly with her about this community from the start? I understand the idea that this doesn't have to be creepy, but lying and sneaking are creepy!
My question: What do you (PUA's out there) suggest a PUA should do when he gets in a serious relationship? Because mine fucked up and I'm pissed off about it (I've been deceived and lied to: this means zero respect for me!).

Dolly said...

Anna,
I'm sorry that you were deceived like that. The PUA community has its share of liars and manipulators, but also its share of good guys, just like anywhere else. I don't know the full story, but the fact that he misled you and saw other women behind your back (I'm assuming you had a mutual understanding of exclusivity?) is not cool. I would suggest reading up on some of the material out there, if you are curious, just so you have a more rounded picture of what the community is and what these men learn. It might be a good time to take stock of your own situation and behaviors in relationships, too. I have to say that one positive thing I have gotten out of being involved with pickup artists is understanding interpersonal communication a lot better, especially in a dating context.

Dave said...

This might be a bit late but I felt compelled to post anyway.

When women say they want men to be themselves, they mean that. They don't say they want a man who is "nice". Being nice is not being yourself. Its altering your behaviour for a specific outcome.

Its much more difficult to be yourself around strangers (particularly attractive ones) if you don't fully accept yourself and aren't comfortable in your own skin. If you can do that, you will be what they call a "natural".

So, some people learn PUA skills to help them overcome this issue. Its like a mask to wear while they work on their inner issues. Some forget they're wearing a mask and assume a new identity that will obviously lack depth and substance.

The alternative is to just work on your self-esteem and social confidence. It will take longer to have an effect on your dating life but the results will be much more solid and will permeate every aspect of your life.

A quick search brought up this page:
http://www.confidenceclub.net/content/socialconfidence.php

It says:
A socially confident person displays the following qualities:

* awareness of the mood and feelings of others
* awareness of one's own feelings
* acceptance of oneself
* ability to live in the present moment
* ability to expose oneself in order to achieve good 'contact' with others

If you could achieve everything on that page, you would never need "PUA skills".

Blogger said...

TeethNightGuard is providing personalized fitting and highest quality custom made teeth guards.