Pickup artist culture is actually proof of the objectification of men

[Omega 3 snake oil]

Men's value has been so thoroughly stripped away in the eyes of women that the only value most women now see in men is as fun or entertainment. Hence we get the replacement courtship with game playing, even among educated, successful women--in fact, especially among this demographic because they tend to be the most independent, at least in the most immediate sense. The prevailing ethos is women don't "need" men, and men are lucky women even consider us in the first place.With no real value as partners (except perhaps for the wealthiest 10 or 20 percent) men are offering women the only thing women still show interest in: Fun.What does a man need to do to impress a woman?  Ask any pickup artist, he will tell you either directly or indirectly it heavily based on showing her a good time. Because what could be a better, more realistic basis for a relationship than projecting an aura of a neverending party?And so men have shaped our identities based on catering to (often childish) whims rather than demonstrating genuine value (though I suppose value is a subjective thing; value to a person whose outlook is based on having fun would be whatever allows for maximum fun).

[MooMoo]

I think you are drawing some wilde conclusions in your leaps of logic. Pick up artristry fills a need that men have to learn more organic and natural approaches to initiate social interaction with women in a culture that doesn't care if men learn that or not. It's not some by product of men being victimized.

[Omega 3 snake oil]

I think you are drawing some wilde conclusions in your leaps of logic.

such as?

 

Pick up artristry fills a need that men have to learn more organic and natural approaches to initiate social interaction with women in a culture that doesn't care if men learn that or not.

I agree, but PUA culture is about a lot more than approaching. From a functional standpoint I'd say it's more about managing relations with women in modern society, something I think occurred more naturally in a premodern setting. The main difference to which I'm referring is today's obsession with instant gratification.

 

It's not some by product of men being victimized.

I didn't say victimized...

[PatrickC]

And so men have shaped our identities based on catering to (often childish) whims rather than demonstrating genuine value (though I suppose value is a subjective thing; value to a person whose outlook is based on having fun would be whatever allows for maximum fun).

 

Interesting perspective. I recall joking with some women in the past, that they only ever needed men as a jester for their titillation.

[TheRobin]

I thought I heard PUAs say their success rate doing this style was only around 10-20%. Or maybe I'm confusing things here.

[PatrickC]

I do tend to agree with MooMoo's point that PUA can have useful approaches on how to deal with the shit tests that younger men can face from some women. And they do a rather good job of dispelling the notion that women are made of china.

 

But I do find your point rather compelling all the same. Whether it fits every woman, then perhaps not. But I appreciate you're generalising for brevities sake. PUA does seem to be a lot about appealing to women's base urges and laughter seems to be the ultimate aphrodisiac for many of them.

[TheRobin]

But I do find your point rather compelling all the same. Whether it fits every woman, then perhaps not. But I appreciate you're generalising for brevities sake. PUA does seem to be a lot about appealing to women's base urges and laughter seems to be the ultimate aphrodisiac for many of them.

 

I'm not sure I can agree to this. I thought about the idea that women only want laughs and fun the last day and I tried to compare it to other friendships I had and what I personally enjoyed about it. And a central thing was, the ability to joke around with them and make each other laugh. So I wouldn't say that's something that only women enjoy.

 

In general, I'd say that laughter and humour is one of those few universal things about being human that most of us like and really want and enjoy, furthermore I coulnd't think of a way to be close friends with someone that mostly lakcs any humour or ability to make jokes and make me laugh (and vice versa ofc). I mean, there has to be more than that to make a friendship, but none the less I think it's a very important part. 

 

Another thing that just came to mind is that humour also requires a level of safety with the other person, as humour is spontaneous most of the time and being spontaneous requires that one is able to realx in the other person's presence, which is only really possible if you feel safe, so its probably also kind of a communication that tells the other person "I feel safe with you, you're not a thread and I want to bring some joy to your life". Which are all necessary for any form or relationship imo.Or do you or did you ever have any friendships where you'd regularly hang out whole evenings and rarely ever laugh or make jokes and such?

[RestoringGuy]

While objectification is a sad pathetic word almost without meaning, there is no outrage over women circumcising their sons deliberately because they are male.  But there is frequent inquisition as to why women are objects because they won't eat their food or else some photo was digitally edited.  I think the pick up artist thing is mostly just denial.  It seems more men would choose to be women than vice-versa. To use the object metaphor, desirable objects are pursued and undesirable objects are avoided.  Few people mention the other side of the coin.

[PatrickC]

Another thing that just came to mind is that humour also requires a level of safety with the other person, as humour is spontaneous most of the time and being spontaneous requires that one is able to realx in the other person's presence, which is only really possible if you feel safe, so its probably also kind of a communication that tells the other person "I feel safe with you, you're not a thread and I want to bring some joy to your life". Which are all necessary for any form or relationship imo.Or do you or did you ever have any friendships where you'd regularly hang out whole evenings and rarely ever laugh or make jokes and such?

 

That's a very good point Robin. Women especially need to feel safe around men and humour is a part of that I guess.

 

And yes, humour is a big part of friendships for sure. However, a woman's relationship with humour is quite different to that of mens. I'm not sure I've ever heard a guy say, 'man that funny lady was hot!'. I mean it could happen, but it's unusual I think.

[TheRobin]

Ha, that's true Good point.I think you're right, I remember hearing that the criteria "must make me laugh" was quite highly rated for women who were looking for a partner, but I never heard anything like that from the male side.Hmm maybe IF that "humour makes me feel safe"-theory is somewhat accurate, I guess then as a male, you would kind of feel insulted if a woman would try to reassure you she's not going to hurt you (at least from a more primitive physically beating-up point ov view), as the male is usually considered to stronger one of the genders.

[LovePrevails]

Pick-up artistry seems to exist for two reasons

1) Men who have learned very poor social skills from their home environment when they were growing up and feel very shameful and emasculated by their lack of success with women so want to learn how to come across as attractive because it ties into how they measure their worth.

2) Women are made to feel like sluts if they have sex with people the want to have sex with a lot of the time, so they have to have plausible deniability - "sex has to always be the mans fault," so there are all these ways the men have to disarm the women and do all the approaching.

 

I don't know what "pickup artistry" means to you or anyone, everyone seems to have a different definition. To some people it's just improving your social skills. It's a horrible word. It suggests that women are not human beings but just targets to be "picked-up". The assumption is also somehow that girls don't want to be picked up, a lot of them do, just by someone they find sexy. If that's all they are looking for they should probably be looking at why they just go for sexy guys rather that people who have a good character and values rather than blaming guys who just learn to appeal to them on a superficial level.

 

There seem to be to schools. One is more about learning to read the situation (which is no way immoral in itself) and then adapt yourself to whatever makes you attractive to the so-called "target" you are trying to pickup, and some of that stuff seems pretty nefarious to me, but it's also idiotic if anyone thinks that is going to solve any problems for them because they are not doing anything based on who they actually are (Mystery who popularized this kind of approach had a mental break down, I would say, because he had no sense of self - in his book he says "you are how you are perceived" which couldn't be further from the truth)

 

There is another school, which I'd say is probably more recent but also seems to be the most popular or "flavour of the month," and I think that's because people had worries about the inauthenticity of previous methods. That school is more about be your best self, look after yourself, improve your self-esteem and self-confidence, work yourself up, become confident talking to anyone, become a good conversationalist, get good social skills, and then approach anyone you want. Not everyone is going to fancy you, but then again who cares you'll have plenty of choice. I can't see anything wrong with any of that. Not doing it or making fun of it is to degrade people for seeing a problem in their life and trying to fix it. everyone is a hater.

 

Some masculinists say that pickup does reinforce the traditional male role of performer, but it all depends what someone wants. Do they want some fun or a good long term relationship? Pick-up can lead to a relationship because the woman may become attached to you after you've been banging for a while, but that is no guarantee that you or her have the personal qualities to make the long term relationship worth having.

[PatrickC]

Hmm maybe IF that "humour makes me feel safe"-theory is somewhat accurate, I guess then as a male, you would kind of feel insulted if a woman would try to reassure you she's not going to hurt you (at least from a more primitive physically beating-up point ov view), as the male is usually considered to stronger one of the genders.

 

Interesting, there is a lot of reasons to ask a woman these days, if she is cool with a sexual approach. Since a woman can decide these days after the fact, that she has been raped, even with her initial consent.But sure, I think men would feel much safer in a woman's company generally. Whilst there is a risk of rejection, a woman will rarely knock your teeth out (I hope).

 

I agree with LP that many men (boys) have been given poor social skills, but I think that has a lot to do with the way feminists have dominated the zeitgeist on how women supposedly feel. At least in part.

[MrCapitalism]

There is another school, which I'd say is probably more recent but also seems to be the most popular or "flavour of the month," and I think that's because people had worries about the inauthenticity of previous methods. That school is more about be your best self, look after yourself, improve your self-esteem and self-confidence, work yourself up, become confident talking to anyone, become a good conversationalist, get good social skills, and then approach anyone you want.

 

If memory serves, this is the "Don Juan" approach, and looked upon by both Don Juan's, and PUA's as 'PUA-lite.' It's used by men who aren't committed to using serious PUA manipulation tactics, and both schools recognize it as such.

[FriendlyHacker]

Dildos are proof of the objectification of men.

[MooMoo]

I didn't say victimized... 

 

You said objectified or to make one subhuman, an object. That's pretty much a victim here when one does not exist.

[Josh F]

To me PUA is about imitating empathy and confidence.  The big thing they encourage is teasing, or playful joking.  Teasing is a sign you're paying attention to her, which is empathy.  But it also shows that you're confident enough to have your own ideas and point out when she is wrong.  Being fake empathetic and fake confident might work for casual sex on a surface level at best, but ultimately will only produce bad relationships and potentially bad marriages or households.  Because learning to appear confident or empathetic is easier for most people than actually earning your confidence and having genuine empathy.  And this fakery will only work on people sufficiently devoid of those qualities as well. 

 

PUA is emotional welfare for people not willing to work on themselves, so they can feel loved without actually being lovable.

[Omega 3 snake oil]

 

Pick-up artistry seems to exist for two reasons

1) Men who have learned very poor social skills from their home environment when they were growing up and feel very shameful and emasculated by their lack of success with women so want to learn how to come across as attractive because it ties into how they measure their worth.

2) Women are made to feel like sluts if they have sex with people the want to have sex with a lot of the time, so they have to have plausible deniability - "sex has to always be the mans fault," so there are all these ways the men have to disarm the women and do all the approaching.

I agree that these are two of the reasons, but I think there is more to the phenomenon. Everything you say after this may be true as well, but you're working within a limited paradigm.How about, 3) women are on average far less interested in having (and raising) children today. This represents a massive change, and so women's priorities and taste in men have changed as well. Qualities like honesty and integrity (even good genetics) have taken a backseat to qualities that allow for entertainment.

 

There is another school, which I'd say is probably more recent but also seems to be the most popular or "flavour of the month," and I think that's because people had worries about the inauthenticity of previous methods. That school is more about be your best self, look after yourself, improve your self-esteem and self-confidence, work yourself up, become confident talking to anyone, become a good conversationalist, get good social skills, and then approach anyone you want. Not everyone is going to fancy you, but then again who cares you'll have plenty of choice. I can't see anything wrong with any of that. Not doing it or making fun of it is to degrade people for seeing a problem in their life and trying to fix it. everyone is a hater.

I somewhat agree, but this highlights the problem(s) I'm trying to point out. The social skills you're talking about are culturally relative--in a traditional hunter/gatherer society, these skills would include being an effective group hunter who has the integrity to share with his tribemates. Sounds ridiculously antiquated by our standards but such people do still exist, and we do share our genes with them. Today, social skills often include things like passive aggression and bald-faced lying. Should men cultivate whatever social skills our zeitgeist demands? 

To me PUA is about imitating empathy and confidence.  The big thing they encourage is teasing, or playful joking.  Teasing is a sign you're paying attention to her, which is empathy.  But it also shows that you're confident enough to have your own ideas and point out when she is wrong.  Being fake empathetic and fake confident might work for casual sex on a surface level at best, but ultimately will only produce bad relationships and potentially bad marriages or households.  Because learning to appear confident or empathetic is easier for most people than actually earning your confidence and having genuine empathy.  And this fakery will only work on people sufficiently devoid of those qualities as well. 

 

PUA is emotional welfare for people not willing to work on themselves, so they can feel loved without actually being lovable.

Love this. Well put.

You said objectified or to make one subhuman, an object. That's pretty much a victim here when one does not exist.

Fallacious reasoning.

[MooMoo]

 

Fallacious reasoning.

 

I don't see how so I guess I disagree. I don't think we can read into the fact that there is a market or culture for PUA and that somehow makes men victims of society or objectified.

[Omega 3 snake oil]

I don't see how so I guess I disagree. I don't think we can read into the fact that there is a market or culture for PUA and that somehow makes men victims of society or objectified.

because the existence of that market is at least partly indicative of a culture that has changed to focus on instant gratification (hence the shift away from the family). Men's role in society, at least in the eyes of many young women, is to provide entertainment. As such men are not seen as entitled to hold their own thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc., they exist simply to cater to the thoughts and feelings of women.And if someone wants to again point out that PUA culture is about empowering men, I'll posit that a person defining him or herself by other's desires or expectations is not empowered but is in fact a servant.

[MooMoo]

Men's role in society, at least in the eyes of many young women, is to provide entertainment.

 

Says who? Maybe that's true for shallow people, but otherwise I don't see how it's gender specific for those that do wish to seek "entertainment" in the opposite sex.PUA can be enpowering as it seeks to teach young men how to better socialize where they otherwise are unable to do to shyness or something else inhibiting their ability to interact and engage someone on a romantic level.

[zippert]

Entertainment is not bad by default. I mean, all relationsships have in common, that they provide pleasure for both parties. Virtue is needed for the long term stability. Entertainment is never bad, except it is the only good thing.

[RichRoch]

And if someone wants to again point out that PUA culture is about empowering men, I'll posit that a person defining him or herself by other's desires or expectations is not empowered but is in fact a servant.

 

 

Ok, I'll bite. I posit that PUA culture is about empowering men. How do I know this? Because I've lived it. I've read some of the books, I've been to the seminars, and I've met and worked with the instructors. And yes, I have gotten comfortable approaching women I've never met before in various situations and I've gotten more comfortable in social settings in general. My life is better than it ever has been, and it has nothing to do with women.

 

Where I disagree is with your suggestion that these PUA individuals define themselves by another's desires or expectations. I grant you that a lot of beginning "PUA"s do this (what objective criteria makes someone a PUA btw?), and in fact this is one of the reasons that they are unattractive to women - what woman wants to be around someone who cannot stand on their own two feet? Who wants a partner with no backbone? Ok, fine, there are probably a few, but they likely have their own issues to deal with. Anyway, when I spent time in the PUA community I found that it was more about men helping men become confident and strong individuals with healthier self esteem and boundaries - boundaries strong enough that they could, just as an example, understand and respond calmly to shit tests from someone they've never met before, whereas previously they might just wilt and slink off to the corner. Frankly, it felt more like a men's support group than anything. I'm sure that there were dudes there for other reasons, but the majority of folks and instructors that I met and worked with were normal dudes helping other dudes to learn social skills, a sense of identity and self-worth, and how to create exciting lives for themselves as men. A lot of guys put pussy on a pedestal, and the community teaches you that guess what, she shits too, and you have a lot more to offer a women in a relationship than you believe. It can, however, take some training to learn the most effective ways to communicate this within the two minutes that she is deciding yes or no.

 

So actually, no, after becoming a "PUA" (whatever that means), you will likely NOT be defining yourself by another person's expectations or desires. You will probably define yourself by YOUR expectations and desires, so that you can live YOUR life in order to achieve YOUR goals, and forget others' opinions because what matters is that you are living life on YOUR terms. The adage "do what you love and the money will follow" is analogous here: become the man that you want to be and success, however you define it, follows: in your career, in your social circle, and yes, with women, too. At least that was my experience. YMMV. I know, I know, there are guys doing this because they just want to bang hot chixxxx, mannn. Please feel free to vilify them if you like, but I don't think that it's fair to paint the entire community with such a wide brush as you and many in this thread have. People arrive at that community for different reasons, have different goals, and ultimately get different things out of it.  Painting the PUA peeps with a single wide brushstroke seems a bit like saying that the entire FDR community believes X. If we all believed X already, we wouldn't need a discussion board, and clearly there is room for discussion within this community.

 

Well, I hope my first non-introduction post was controversial enough

[PatrickC]

And if someone wants to again point out that PUA culture is about empowering men, I'll posit that a person defining him or herself by other's desires or expectations is not empowered but is in fact a servant.

 

I'm going to stick my neck out here and assume that you are taking the MGTOW position, or at least the more radical end of that idea. I think I heard one of Barborossa's rants a while back, where he referred to the PUA community as a bunch of 'pussy pleasers'. It was an interesting take on PUA that I hadn't considered before.

 

What's your take on mastery of any kind amongst men. Such as a painter, poet, singer or mastery of any kind. It seems to me that women are always going to be attracted to men that display mastery. Wouldn't that be the basis for most romantic relationships. Or is it just what you consider as the more shallow skills learnt with PUA that you find the most troubling.

[CrazyCanuck]

Men's value has been so thoroughly stripped away in the eyes of women that the only value most women now see in men is as fun or entertainment. Hence we get the replacement courtship with game playing, even among educated, successful women--in fact, especially among this demographic because they tend to be the most independent, at least in the most immediate sense. The prevailing ethos is women don't "need" men, and men are lucky women even consider us in the first place.

 

With no real value as partners (except perhaps for the wealthiest 10 or 20 percent) men are offering women the only thing women still show interest in: Fun.

 

What does a man need to do to impress a woman?  Ask any pickup artist, he will tell you either directly or indirectly it heavily based on showing her a good time. Because what could be a better, more realistic basis for a relationship than projecting an aura of a neverending party?

 

And so men have shaped our identities based on catering to (often childish) whims rather than demonstrating genuine value (though I suppose value is a subjective thing; value to a person whose outlook is based on having fun would be whatever allows for maximum fun).

I don't know about you but I don't like dating women that want to be courted.  What's the point of going out with women who are only interested getting their ego stroked?  Many women expect the men to pay for the dates, buy them gifts etc.  I rather be liked that I am entertaining.  There are women out there will go out with me just to get gifts and meals and some of them even keep track.

 

 

What's a girl to do when she's a struggling actress who just wants a really good restaurant meal? Go on a ton of first dates, of course! That's the strategy used by one Toronto woman who decided to tell the world about her serial dating stories in the form of a blog.

 

According to Toronto Life, Erin Wotherspoon, who authors the blog 

 restauranttipsfromaserialdater.tumbler.com, is using dudes to buy her dinner. And she's upfront about it.

On her blog, Wotherspoon says her mission is to "Eat in pretty restaurants without costing me a penny." She also wants her readers to "Follow me to learn who I screw over, bang and love as I navigate Toronto's diners, drive-ins, and dives." Sounds charming, no? Of course, there Wotherspoon's writing takes a humorous tone. Wotherspoon seeks fame and is unashamed of her plot. "I truly don’t think what I’m doing is that awful. I talk to so many people who said that first dates rarely work out anyway. So what if a guy spends an extra $20?" she told theToronto Sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.delish.com/food/recalls-reviews/toronto-woman-uses-online-dating-to-fund-restaurant-hobby

[Omega 3 snake oil]

Says who? Maybe that's true for shallow people, but otherwise I don't see how it's gender specific for those that do wish to seek "entertainment" in the opposite sex.

the way that it's gender specific:  PUA culture is very much focussed on men providing entertainment/short term enjoyment to women in order to obtain and keep a woman's interest. It does not foster much in terms of a "two way street" unless you consider the woman's end of the bargain to be fulfilled by her looking nice and perhaps allowing sex to occur.

 

What's your take on mastery of any kind amongst men. Such as a painter, poet, singer or mastery of any kind. It seems to me that women are always going to be attracted to men that display mastery. Wouldn't that be the basis for most romantic relationships. Or is it just what you consider as the more shallow skills learnt with PUA that you find the most troubling.

 

Kind of apples to oranges, here. When a person decides to master a skill it is generally for the love of that skill/art in and of itself, with ends like money or fame being fringe benefits. When a novelist sits down to write his/her magnum opus, it's generally not based on "if I pull this off, I will receive money/fame/pussy", whereas men learn PUA skills almost exclusively with the end goal of sex in mind. 

 

 My life is better than it ever has been, and it has nothing to do with women.

 

Where I disagree is with your suggestion that these PUA individuals define themselves by another's desires or expectations.... Anyway, when I spent time in the PUA community I found that it was more about men helping men become confident and strong individuals with healthier self esteem and boundaries - boundaries strong enough that they could, just as an example, understand and respond calmly to shit tests from someone they've never met before, whereas previously they might just wilt and slink off to the corner. Frankly, it felt more like a men's support group than anything.

Valid points (you make many ), but saying PUA culture doesn't define itself based on female approval is like saying the NFL doesn't define itself based on points scored. Take women out of that equation, and what would you have?... Well, then you'd have a bonafide male support group, or male positive space. And those do exist, but that's not what we're talking about. I know there are many ancillary benefits of PUA culture, like increased confidence, self-worth, better social skills in general, but you are still operating within a framework based on gaining female approval (i.e. "the game").And I do see some practical value in learning how to deal with shit tests, etc. (something I've made a point of working on). But in a greater philosophical sense, why should grown men have to worry about things like "shit tests" in the first place? Aren't these mainly a byproduct of modern society, people having too much time on their hands, too much disposable income, etc.? Women are inventing new criteria to qualify or disqualify men (you could argue it's "always been like that", but I have a hard time imagining the mentality of contemporary women existing in my mother's generation).  These criteria may have their origins in our nature as hunter/gatherers but now that child rearing has largely been taken off the table, what point does any of it serve besides entertaining women?

 

So actually, no, after becoming a "PUA" (whatever that means), you will likely NOT be defining yourself by another person's expectations or desires. You will probably define yourself by YOUR expectations and desires, so that you can live YOUR life in order to achieve YOUR goals, and forget others' opinions because what matters is that you are living life on YOUR terms.

So does the PUA community have many gay members?... If you're scoffing at that, I ask you, why? Don't gay men deserve, want, and need positive self-image as much as hetero men?... Maybe they aren't interested in the PUA community because without women as an incentive men tend to find different, non-pussy-based ways of defining their self-worth.

[MooMoo]

the way that it's gender specific:  PUA culture is very much focussed on men providing entertainment/short term enjoyment to women in order to obtain and keep a woman's interest. It does not foster much in terms of a "two way street" unless you consider the woman's end of the bargain to be fulfilled by her looking nice and perhaps allowing sex to occur.

 

 

 No,  I get that PUA is for men trying to meet and get intimate with women, I didn't mean to suggest that wasn't gender specific(and there's nothing wrong with it either) what I'm wondering is how seeking entertainment from the opposite sex is gender specific.

[Omega 3 snake oil]

 No,  I get that PUA is for men trying to meet and get intimate with women, I didn't mean to suggest that wasn't gender specific(and there's nothing wrong with it either) what I'm wondering is how seeking entertainment from the opposite sex is gender specific.

Because the whole interaction is based on men providing entertainment for women."Well that's because men want entertainment value from women, so it's a mutual give and take"... fine, but not entirely. First, even if a man doesn't want a woman for entertainment--he may want genuine friendship, or something that can lead to a committed relationship--he still needs to entertain her to keep her interest. Secondly, and this is not as strong an argument, but if the male-female dynamic is based on men approaching, men maintaining the conversation, men making sure dates go smoothly, men paying for dates, etc., where exactly is the woman's responsibility?  <collective laughter from the PUA set>This is not a two-way street.A relationship where one party bears all the responsibility and all the obligation, isn't necessarily fair, balanced, or harmonious. "Yeah, well, that's how the game is played, so it's smart to learn the rules, etc...."   Again, I think "the game" is a social construct built on top of stone age instincts. Women used to be attracted to men who could provide for their offspring, displayed by traits such as confidence and decisiveness. But now that we're not usually faced with immediate threats to our survival (i.e. by living in modern/consumer society), women's innate desires have run amok, manifested in beliefs like "I want the most confident, attention-getting man in the club!"  But that confident, attention-getting male may not have much actually going for him. No other alpha males will (likely) test him. There are no sabretooth tigers to weed out the impostors. And so, everyone gets away with pretending."Fake it til you make it!" To think that our society can get by on everyone faking whatever they want to be... this is the same kind of unsustainable optimism that creates economic bubbles.Tangential, and not necessarily related to my other arguments, but I'm going to come out and say that "the game" (modern rules of dating as exemplified by PUA culture) allows people to artificially inflate their value in a way that is not sustainable, like every stock or every house on the market being sold for three times its actual value. 

[kalmia]

I don't know about you but I don't like dating women that want to be courted.  What's the point of going out with women who are only interested getting their ego stroked?  Many women expect the men to pay for the dates, buy them gifts etc.  I rather be liked that I am entertaining.  There are women out there will go out with me just to get gifts and meals and some of them even keep track.

 

 

What's a girl to do when she's a struggling actress who just wants a really good restaurant meal? Go on a ton of first dates, of course! That's the strategy used by one Toronto woman who decided to tell the world about her serial dating stories in the form of a blog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.delish.com/food/recalls-reviews/toronto-woman-uses-online-dating-to-fund-restaurant-hobby

 

 

By paying on a first date like that, you are identifying yourself as a provider type. Women in Western Societies aren't that attracted to provider types anymore. Not paying screens out women like this. People can hate on her, but those who know how to screen for these types won't be bothered.

[MooMoo]

By paying on a first date like that, you are identifying yourself as a provider type. Women in Western Societies aren't that attracted to provider types anymore. Not paying screens out women like this. People can hate on her, but those who know how to screen for these types won't be bothered.

 

Yeah, that's not true. There's plenty of women out there that would be happy to be with the provider type.

[Holo Cene]

The general misunderstanding of PUA is in the original assumption of the virtues involved in male-female relationships. When one has an ideal of how these types of relationships should exist and function one finds fault with anything outside of that definition. You cannot say what is true for one will be true for another so long as it does not violate the NAP. The free market has come up with a solution to the vacuum created by the feminist propaganda machine and the weak, broken men coming out of the grinder into sexual maturity. These men are completely unaware and unprepared for life with the opposite sex. 

 

The PUA movement is just men who have taken this vacuum and provided a service. They teach men how to interact with women. That's all. What a person does with it is their prerogative. PUA doesn't violate the NAP, it is actually a model based on incentives which is all that attraction really is. 

[MooMoo]

Well put Holo Cene!

[Omega 3 snake oil]

The general misunderstanding of PUA is in the original assumption of the virtues involved in male-female relationships. When one has an ideal of how these types of relationships should exist and function one finds fault with anything outside of that definition. You cannot say what is true for one will be true for another so long as it does not violate the NAP. The free market has come up with a solution to the vacuum created by the feminist propaganda machine and the weak, broken men coming out of the grinder into sexual maturity. These men are completely unaware and unprepared for life with the opposite sex. 

 

The PUA movement is just men who have taken this vacuum and provided a service. They teach men how to interact with women. That's all. What a person does with it is their prerogative. PUA doesn't violate the NAP, it is actually a model based on incentives which is all that attraction really is. 

This sounds like a bit of a sexual arms race, though I realize you're saying PUA culture simply takes us closer to the natural state of things. I partly agree: modern society, including feminist/leftist influences have downplayed the value of men in the eyes of women and in the eyes of men themselves. Many are lost, lacking the confidence to approach women, carry a conversation, etc.They need to find their way. I get it.Your argument points out (and is based on) the fact that men, in a nutshell, have changed. That is, society has changed men. Right?But does your argument take into account the fact that these same societal forces have changed women to a similar degree, albeit in a different direction (being made more self-assured instead of less so)? If you want to paint with extremely broad strokes, you could say men have been turned into sniveling pussies while women have been turned into cold-hearted, self-entitled products of postconsumer culture.... so, the nature of both women and men have been changed? Yay or nay.Also: I find your free market and non-NAP justifications a bit trite. They're not untrue, but they don't really strengthen your argument. Prostitution doesn't violate the NAP, meaning it's not morally wrong, but that doesn't make it good in any sense.

[PatrickC]

I think it was interesting that you considered PUA as a form of enslaving men to women's needs. I partly agree with that to some degree. If a guy is relying on his humour to increase his status with a woman, then he is likely to fall short at some point. Either from lack of material, her boredom, his boredom or eventually just realising that he has more needs than banging a hot chick. This is why PUA tends (not always) to lead to most of those men often having quick flings or a rotation of flings with different women. In that way it seemingly suits the culture of today for both men and women. Women get their momentry alpha fix and men get laid by attractive women.

 

As I said I don't entirely dismiss the PUA culture entirely, as it has some useful stuff that young men can unlearn about women in this hyper feminised culture we live in. But I think there is no doubting that PUA is not a useful long term strategy for better relationships.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Let's paint a picture guys. in a metaphorical sense, the PUA is a guy who offers a woman a cake with lots of candy and cream as toping, but he is completely naked and needs the cake to cover it up. The reason for his dishonesty is his weakness - nakedness. He entertains her - the cake - and since sex is mutual pleasurable, he offers a bonus - cream and candy.

 

To be honest, a woman who wears makeup and skimpy clothes fakes her true colors in a similiar way, just to attract guys. The PUAs fake their intention, because they have nothing more to offer than their fake-self, naked flesh and bones.

[Omega 3 snake oil]

So people know I'm not a "hater", here's something I just came across on Neil Strauss' website that I think is useful/valuable for men looking to meet women... I just want to be clear that I believe there is definitely some value in PUA thinking

 

Top 11 Mistakes Men Make When Approaching Women

Enjoy…

• Don’t wait to approach her until she’s alone. Even if she likes you, her friends will soon drag her away.
• Don’t stare at her for more than three seconds before approaching. Hesitate, and you’ll either creep her out or psych yourself out.
• Don’t be afraid to approach just because there are men in the group. Chances are she’s with family, friends, or co-workers, not a love interest.
• Don’t open a conversation by apologizing. Phrases like “Excuse me,” “Pardon me,” and “I’m sorry” make you sound like a beggar.
• Don’t hit on her or give her a generic compliment. Instead, start a conversation with an entertaining anecdote or question, such as asking the group to suggest names for a three-legged cat or a store that sells 70s memorabilia. It may sound corny, but everyone loves to give an opinion.
• Don’t buy her a drink. You shouldn’t have to pay for her attention.
• Don’t touch or grab her right away. If she touches you, say, with a smile, “Hey now, hands off the merchandise.”
• Don’t lean in or hover over her. Stand up straight and, if the music’s too loud or she’s seated, simply speak up.
• Don’t initially ask what her name is, what she does for a living, or where she’s from. She’s bored of talking about the same things with every new guy she meets.
• Don’t focus all your attention on her when she’s with other people. If you win her friends over, you’ll win her.
• Don’t be afraid to disobey any of these guidelines once you understand them and why they exist.