Another PUA post...

[Omegahero09]

Alright, let's go to the source.

 

Before you watch this- I have some points and a question.

 

-Game: the tools and methods for interacting with women. Each man will have a unique version of game- each man can borrow game from other men (and women) and learn different styles.

 

-The emphasis here is for just sleeping with women, however, what is taught are just tools, and anyone can do anything they wish with these tools. Julien even talks about gaming old ladies, and has been known to game any/all girls in general- just for his own amusement.

 

-Julien's niche in RSD is that the man really understands how women think, and understands empathy and the woman's perspective.

 

My Question: Is manipulation actually advocated in this presentation?

 

Thank you for your time.

 

[thebeardslastcall]

Do you think a lack of manipulation makes an action okay? I mean, manipulating people can said to be bad, but that doesn't make actions that are absent manipulation good. If two people decide to rob a bank I'm not sure it matters too much if one didn't have to manipulate the other to get them in on the heist as to the end result's morality.
 

People call this stuff artistry, I sometimes wonder if it could be classified as a dark art.

Using the word "gaming" to describe the methods also seem to suggest it's a non-empathetic method for getting sex. People can say it's okay because they're playing the same game going to bars and such for this type of stuff, but again having another bad person that's okay with doing something immoral doesn't make it right. I'm not saying you shouldn't have sex with people, but the way you talk about the whole process (in your post, I didn't watch the video) seems to encourage dishonesty and trickery.

 

If you're talking about manipulation, then you're talking about morality basically, but it's trying to pretend morality because you did one thing without a particular immorality, without having greater morals for the overall situation. I mean I don't have to defend the morality of not killing someone by saying I wasn't manipulated to not kill someone.


 

[MMX2010]

but the way you talk about the whole process (in your post, I didn't watch the video) seems to encourage dishonesty and trickery.

 

If you're talking about manipulation, then you're talking about morality basically, but it's trying to pretend morality because you did one thing without a particular immorality, without having greater morals for the overall situation. I mean I don't have to defend the morality of not killing someone by saying I wasn't manipulated to not kill someone.

 

 

This happens very often, so don't think I'm singling you out.  But I call this "Accuse, then Play Defense."

 

As in, "First you accuse PUAs of being dishonest, manipulative, and immoral.  Then, you wait for them to scramble to defend themselves - (which they can never adequately do, because you haven't studied PUA nor implemented it as Roosh describes) - or you wait for them to refuse to defend themselves - at which point you say, "AHA!  Dishonest manipulators cannot prove their innocence!" 

 

I'm not going to play along this time.    Instead, I'll just study PUA some more, knowing that I can do what is required without resorting to heinous moral violations and dishonesty. 

[Omegahero09]

Using the word "gaming" to describe the methods also seem to suggest it's a non-empathetic method for getting sex. People can say it's okay because they're playing the same game going to bars and such for this type of stuff, but again having another bad person that's okay with doing something immoral doesn't make it right. I'm not saying you shouldn't have sex with people, but the way you talk about the whole process (in your post, I didn't watch the video) seems to encourage dishonesty and trickery.

 

If you're talking about manipulation, then you're talking about morality basically, but it's trying to pretend morality because you did one thing without a particular immorality, without having greater morals for the overall situation. I mean I don't have to defend the morality of not killing someone by saying I wasn't manipulated to not kill someone.

 

 

Good sir, my question comes from the general consensus on the boards that PUA/Game has manipulation, or manipulative elements in it- and the FDR community who spoke about it was turned off by the consensus (amid other things).

 

I don't encourage dishonesty or trickery, (where did I do that? not being a dick just want to understand where you got that vibe from my post) and Game is amoral- like RTR is amoral. Both are merely frameworks for interactions.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I have found Owen from RSD to be especially inspirational for many areas of life other than pick-up. I would love to see Stef interview him. 

As for pua being manipulative, men are often already being manipulative when they try to get women. These pick-up techniques simply teach competence and in some ways allow one to become less manipulative and more successful .

[Omegahero09]

I have found Owen from RSD to be especially inspirational for many areas of life other than pick-up. I would love to see Stef interview him. 

As for pua being manipulative, men are often already being manipulative when they try to get women. These pick-up techniques simply teach competence and in some ways allow one to become less manipulative and more successful .

 

You sir, get a thumb manliness!

I really like Owen too, I find his insights for getting into the moment, and self-actualization to be great stuff

[PatrickC]

You're right game is not immoral. Not sure why people want to keep leading it in that direction frankly.

 

However, like tight hot pants, plunging necklines and overuse of make up on a woman, often leads to lowering the defences of a mans natural inclination to fuck as many women as he can. Game is mean't to lower a woman's natural defences from fucking fewer men.

 

PUA will say that they are giving these women what they want. I agree, who could argue with a couple that are laughing and enjoying each others company to perhaps then lead onto some bedroom olympics. Just like that guy who got seduced by the girl in the hot pants, He's not complaining as he's peeling them off her either.

 

That said, there are some useful elements of self improvement and mastery that are taught in PUA. How to understand the needs of a person you are interacting with, from their speech, body language and eye contact etc. All important aspects to empathising with another human being. These are also tools you use in RTR as well. However, PUA will often exploit signs in women they are interacting with in order that they become more compliant with them for sex. Are these tools unique to PUA? No, they can be found in all kinds of mastery classes in business and self improvement. They can also be taught by parents too.

 

All said and done, I certainly sympathise with the guy that uses PUA, since the antics of a lot of women (especially hot pants woman) are rarely held to the same sort of scrutiny and men are just told to always have 'good' intentions. I just don't believe PUA will attract the more virtuous woman in the long run (that comes from xp too). But by all means sift the wheat from the chaff from some of the tools PUA can teach you, but try not to get too carried away by the seeming positive reaction you may get from some women. Some of them you will want to avoid, even if your dick is saying otherwise.

[MMX2010]

You're right game is not immoral. Not sure why people want to keep leading it in that direction frankly.

 

However, like tight hot pants, plunging necklines and overuse of make up on a woman, often leads to lowering the defences of a mans natural inclination to fuck as many women as he can. Game is mean't to lower a woman's natural defences from fucking fewer men.

 

When you Frame it that way, you cannot help but Frame women as irrational, stupid creatures who need dispassionate masculine asexual guidance to lead them into more intelligent decisions. 

 

But the most liberating thing about PUA is that it teaches men (and women) through direct personal experience that women aren't like that.  They don't need the Beta Male's constant hovering and shaming in order to make them make better decisions.  And they don't need the Beta Male's hovering because their every hypergamous desire is beautiful and just. 

[PatrickC]

When you Frame it that way, you cannot help but Frame women as irrational, stupid creatures who need dispassionate masculine asexual guidance to lead them into more intelligent decisions. 

 

Putting words into the mouth of your opponent again David. Long winded ones at that.

 

Women have as much free will as the guy being seduced by hot pants woman.

[AncapFTW]

When you Frame it that way, you cannot help but Frame women as irrational, stupid creatures who need dispassionate masculine asexual guidance to lead them into more intelligent decisions. 

 

But the most liberating thing about PUA is that it teaches men (and women) through direct personal experience that women aren't like that.  They don't need the Beta Male's constant hovering and shaming in order to make them make better decisions.  And they don't need the Beta Male's hovering because their every hypergamous desire is beautiful and just. 

Your post from "Friends with Benefits":

 

 

WasatchMan, on 13 Jun 2015 - 12:50 AM, said:

So are you advocating for something akin to a Masculine King (analogous to Plato's Philosopher King) , who can save women from themselves? OR are you just advocating men protect themselves while still being able to get sex?

 

Both.  Those two practices aren't mutually exclusive.

 

----

 

So, if you want men to "save women from themselves" how is that not framing "women as irrational, stupid creatures who need dispassionate masculine asexual guidance to lead them into more intelligent decisions."?

[Omegahero09]

All said and done, I certainly sympathise with the guy that uses PUA, since the antics of a lot of women (especially hot pants woman) are rarely held to the same sort of scrutiny and men are just told to always have 'good' intentions. I just don't believe PUA will attract the more virtuous woman in the long run (that comes from xp too). But by all means sift the wheat from the chaff from some of the tools PUA can teach you, but try not to get too carried away by the seeming positive reaction you may get from some women. Some of them you will want to avoid, even if your dick is saying otherwise.

 

Hmmm..

 

How would PUA not attract the more virtuous woman?

 

Also by what measurement do we judge the virtue of a woman?

[MMX2010]

Putting words into the mouth of your opponent again David. Long winded ones at that.

 

Women have as much free will as the guy being seduced by hot pants woman.

 

Not putting words in your mouth, Patrick.

 

Just saying A causes B. 

 

Once you say, "Game is mean't to lower a woman's natural defences from fucking fewer men.", you inevitably make people assume that you believe that women are irrational creatures who need masculine male leadership to save them from their hypergamous desires.  Basically, Game is (mostly) bad because hypergamy is (entirely) bad.

 

If you didn't believe that hypergamy is bad, you wouldn't frame Game as a way of getting past a woman's defenses.

 

Your post from "Friends with Benefits":

 

 

 

Both.  Those two practices aren't mutually exclusive.

 

----

 

So, if you want men to "save women from themselves" how is that not framing "women as irrational, stupid creatures who need dispassionate masculine asexual guidance to lead them into more intelligent decisions."?

 

 

I'll connect your post with thebeardslastcall's post, because they share the same error.

 

If Omegahero had asked, "What are the social, physical, and emotional behaviors by which female penguins determine which male penguins are suitable reproductive partners?", no man here would say, "Well, when I imagine myself as a penguin, these are the traits that I would like, so it must be true that female penguins like these traits."  Instead, you wouldn't imagine yourself as a penguin, because you're not a penguin.  Then you'd dispassionately observe female penguins, and make an educated guess." 

 

But in this thread, Omegahero asks whether PUA is manipulation, and thebeardslastcall's tactic was to imagine himself as a woman, and assert (or imply) (or expect) women to agree with him. 

 

And you, AncapFTW, are imagining yourself to be me and asserting (or implying) (or expecting) that I must want men to save women from themselves". 

 

In your case, all I can do is say that you're wrong.  No further discussion required. 

[thebeardslastcall]

This happens very often, so don't think I'm singling you out.  But I call this "Accuse, then Play Defense."

 

As in, "First you accuse PUAs of being dishonest, manipulative, and immoral.  Then, you wait for them to scramble to defend themselves - (which they can never adequately do, because you haven't studied PUA nor implemented it as Roosh describes) - or you wait for them to refuse to defend themselves - at which point you say, "AHA!  Dishonest manipulators cannot prove their innocence!" 

He already seemed to be on the defensive. So I was wondering what he was defending exactly.

 

 

Good sir, my question comes from the general consensus on the boards that PUA/Game has manipulation, or manipulative elements in it- and the FDR community who spoke about it was turned off by the consensus (amid other things).

 

I don't encourage dishonesty or trickery, (where did I do that? not being a dick just want to understand where you got that vibe from my post) and Game is amoral- like RTR is amoral. Both are merely frameworks for interactions.

 

I'm not really that familiar with PUA and the little exposure I have had to it from outside of this community does give it a negative vibe. Perhaps it is a marketing issue with using the term for two different styles of getting women and for two different games. Also the game for PUA is usually stated to be getting laid, not building a relationship with the woman or preparing for the possibility to have children. I tend to associate game playing with just beating a level or getting a high score. This is a rather narrow view of the objectives of the game. Life is far more complicated than that and you are dealing with other people. So calling it gaming old ladies or the like is what gives it a negative vibe for me. I am saying the way you talk about what you are doing to actual people is what turns me off to it. Like you are just trying to push just the right buttons on people to get the desired output. I didn't see you encourage dishonesty or trickery, but in claiming amorality you are also not encouraging moral objectives either and given that you are interacting with another person and engaging in sex with them it makes it feel like you are framing the whole game as some exercise in partnered masturbation, outside of any notable moral issues. Which seems to encourage two people to play the game of just treating each other as utilities for this function.

 

I am sure the videos have some usefulness and make some fair points and help people. I just do not like how it is framed personally and I guess I am a bit down on the high promiscuity of people, which leads to a lot of unintended consequences that seem to produce a lot of strife and disregard for people's feelings. Disregard in that you are okay with just a neutral or amoral interaction. I would rather encourage a more considerate and non-masturbatory approach to sex and relationships with other people. My reading things this way I will again note is due to how you framed it and not a direct rebuke of any of the particular points in the video. Having game is useful for getting past the defensive wall to build a relationship with a person, but if you frame it as just having game to get laid that is where the deviation lies. It is the end game and what you do once you use your game to get past the initial barriers to interacting with the opposite sex. I do not necessarily see anything wrong with using what could be classified as PUA to get past initial barriers, but where it leads is what I am questioning, which is why I was trying to get past the ideas of it being manipulating or not manipulating as not the relevant question or points for me.

 

So perhaps put more concisely into a question, what is the game?

 

 

 

 

 

[RyanT]

Yeah I’d agree with you there Pat

 

Certainly growing up the 'nice guy/simp' seemed almost the default position, a lot of guys either having hapless henpecked fathers or raised by single mothers, and thus trained from a young age to supplicate women.

 

Then they went out into the world and got absolutely punished for it, by downright rejection... or worse...

 

Obviously they need something to help them grow a set of balls and a sense of self-worth but is that necessarily ‘PUA’?

 

As you say, there’s definitely nuggets of wisdom to be had,

 

It encourages guys to look after themselves and have a bit of style and panache... something often too quickly pooh-poohed by the ‘philosophical community’ as being superficial (while ignoring the fact a worn out baggy T-shirt and dirty trainers ‘says something about you’ too)

 

Same goes like you say for communication, think as guys in general we’re inclined to focus on what we’re saying while neglecting how we say it...certainly there’s a bit of a stereotype among ancaps of standing there and ‘giving a lecture’ (usually about some enthralling topic like the federal reserve)  

 

A big concept with the PUA’s though is this idea that you ‘fake it till you make it’ in that you act confident and that gives you a boost until it just becomes natural...doesn’t really address the underlying issues though? Indeed you’re diverting energy away from the self-work involved in actually getting to that place authentically?

 

A virtuous woman is going to see that and be pretty disappointed

 

A none virtuous woman is going to see that as something she can play to her advantage...

[Omegahero09]

So perhaps put more concisely into a question, what is the game?

 

I gave the definition for it above in the opening post- it simply is the tools and methods for the interaction between a man and a woman. Sometimes in the interaction it's aggressively sexual, other times playful. As I said it's unique to the man, and even when you aren't expressing yourself- that is still game. If a woman responds well to assholes- she responds well to asshole game. If a women responds well to provider male game- she has 5 kids and needs a hubby lol- provider game. Game just calls the attractions for what they are.

 

Game embraces the inherent sexuality that happens in the sub communication between men and women. Once you see it and master it, you'll have greater control over your life, and will be able to see other truths in interactions. It was eye-opening for me just like how FDR opened my eyes to the illusions of statism.

 

Scenario!

 

I hit the local coffee house to peruse the boards and take in the summer weather with a large iced mocha. Inside, I see that the barista at the teller is a little cutie, busy in the bustle of weekend hustle- in her zone; genuinely flustered at her militant boss and the snobs in the shop. The playful urge to flirt comes up inside of me, so when I finish ordering, I don't leave the teller right away- I lean in and say "hey.."

 

"Hm? Yes?"

 

I poke her lightly on the nose and say "Boop! Keep it up.. uh.. (reading her nametag) Rachel!" Then walk outside to chill on the couches out back of the shop.

 

-------

 

That's all it is! I wanted to flirt for fun and whisk away the stress from her and give her some relief.

 

If you read through the manosphere, you'll find that purpose and intent are crucial to success with women. You'll find that in order to be truly good at it, you yourself have to be whole and well in your world- which means women don't find broken traumatized men attractive at all. As I said before in another post- thankfully women are attracted to badass motherfuckers who get shit done and make lots of money. It's natural for the woman to follow the man in the pursuit of his desires and what he knows is important in life.

 

Also- there's a lot of material out there for relationship game! Since like, no one knows what a functional marriage looks like, LTR game was addressed to help men keep attraction with women, and to better understand her side of things in the long term relationship. Paired with RTR, the two would make for an excellent balance methinks.

One more thing:

 

I'd say 60% of learning game is learning empathy and how to empathize with women, and 40% is learning to assert yourself.

 

What I've learned from scoping out game is just how different women are from men, and expecting them to experience what men do is unreasonable.

 

Women will naturally rationalize their emotions. Which is why it's so common for people to think of them as stupid.

 

Men will naturally experience emotion from their rationalizations. Which is why it's so common for people to think of men as selfish.

 

 

Without self knowledge for either... well we know all too well what results.

[PatrickC]

How would PUA not attract the more virtuous woman?

 

In much the same way as hot pants woman is unlikely to catch herself a virtuous man.

 

Now I'll hear the roars from PUAs that will say they are way more sophisticated than your average lady in hot pants. So I'll be more specific then. There is a method in PUA land that is called 'negging'. This ranges from light digs to sharp almost crude criticisms of their target, interwoven with compliments of them too. Perhaps even some self deprecation for extra measure. It's designed to catch a girl off guard and distrupt her thinking. It also works as a useful way for the PUA to avoid discussing their authentic selves and put her in a position of defense. It works remarkably well on 'some' ladies, like the guy being seduced by the hot pants. The content of her character becomes the least discussed topic, whilst he's short circuited by her plunging neckline and tight hot pants.

 

Any woman of virtue is going to see this as a deliberate attempt to avoid being authentic with her and will reject him accordingly. Of course to the PUA rejection is fine, they just move onto the next target. Never fully appreciating what they just missed.

 

Also by what measurement do we judge the virtue of a woman?

 

Virtue is not a science and people are virtuous on a scale. However, the least I would expect of a virtuous woman, is not to find herself persuing a guy that 'negs' her. Much like she can expect me, not to be seduced by hot pants woman.

[Matt D]

How would PUA not attract the more virtuous woman?

 

Because sex has nothing to do with virtue. It's not opposite to virtue, it's just neutral.

 

"You can do anything. You can get away with anything just find a different way of framing it." Fuck that. If you set this as a standard for your relationship (that's what dating is, setting standards for the future) then you're guaranteeing that it's okay for her to lie, cheat on you, manipulate you in the future.

 

Call me a prude, white knight or whatever nonsense you want, but the fact that Julien thinks using child abuse to get access to a women's vagina is funny or cool I find absolutely revolting. 

[MMX2010]

A big concept with the PUA’s though is this idea that you ‘fake it till you make it’ in that you act confident and that gives you a boost until it just becomes natural...doesn’t really address the underlying issues though? Indeed you’re diverting energy away from the self-work involved in actually getting to that place authentically?

 

A virtuous woman is going to see that and be pretty disappointed

 

I explained this to a teenage boy as such.

 

Him: I get it.  You just have to be yourself in the most confident manner possible.

 

Me:  No, you don't get it.  First you have to be what she wants, and then you have to be yourself.  Now, you can mindfuck yourself by asking, "Which version of me is the Real Me? Is it the person I've been for a long time before I discovered PUA, or is it the new person I've become as a result of PUA?"  But that's mindfuckery, because you're trying to anticipate her feelings by going into your own head.  Question, "Who does she think you are?"  Answer, "She thinks you are who you're presenting yourself as, so if you're presenting yourself according to what PUA says, then in her mind that's who you really are." 

 

He instantly smiled and understood.  Hopefully, you will, too. 

In much the same way as hot pants woman is unlikely to catch herself a virtuous man.

 

Now I'll hear the roars from PUAs that will say they are way more sophisticated than your average lady in hot pants. So I'll be more specific then. There is a method in PUA land that is called 'negging'. This ranges from light digs to sharp almost crude criticisms of their target, interwoven with compliments of them too. Perhaps even some self deprecation for extra measure. It's designed to catch a girl off guard and distrupt her thinking. It also works as a useful way for the PUA to avoid discussing their authentic selves and put her in a position of defense. It works remarkably well on 'some' ladies, like the guy being seduced by the hot pants. The content of her character becomes the least discussed topic, whilst he's short circuited by her plunging neckline and tight hot pants.

 

Any woman of virtue is going to see this as a deliberate attempt to avoid being authentic with her and will reject him accordingly. Of course to the PUA rejection is fine, they just move onto the next target. Never fully appreciating what they just missed.

 

*grins* 

 

Again, I'll just point out the "penguins example", wherein men wouldn't dare imagine themselves as penguins, and then predict the sexual responses of female penguins.  But, lo and behold, PatrickC is imagining himself as a woman and then predicting how women will respond. 

 

Patrick, you're basically saying that just one neg, in a series of deep philosophical questions about her character, will erase all of the knowledge and emotional connection created by asking those deep philosophical questions.  Or you're asserting (or implying) (or expecting) that no man can skillfully combine negging with philosophical discussion. 

 

Neither of those are true.  Nor are they true for myself, Omegahero, and many PUAs I know.  While I'll grant that the majority of PUAs are not interested in deep philosophical questions, I won't accept your characterization of PUA as de facto incompatible with deep philosophical discussions. 

 

What happens when I combine negging with deep philosophical discussions?  That's easy.  She gets mad at the negs, but becomes emotionally closer whenever I discuss deep philosophy. 

[thebeardslastcall]

I gave the definition for it above in the opening post- it simply is the tools and methods for the interaction between a man and a woman. Sometimes in the interaction it's aggressively sexual, other times playful. As I said it's unique to the man, and even when you aren't expressing yourself- that is still game. If a woman responds well to assholes- she responds well to asshole game. If a women responds well to provider male game- she has 5 kids and needs a hubby lol- provider game. Game just calls the attractions for what they are.

 

That's having game, that's not the game. You definition and this answer tells me about 'having game', that is, how you play the game and how there are different ways to play the game depending on your target. It doesn't answer my question of what the game is. What the end game is or what game you are playing, as different from how you play the game. I'm not asking how you do what you do, I'm asking why you are doing what you are doing. What's the goal of your game.

 

So some woman has 5 kids and you're going to 'provider game' her to have sex with her? Are you going to actually help the woman at all or are you just classifying the type of game by the vulnerability of the woman, being a chameleon to whatever you think she's looking for to get whatever it is you are after?

 

I hit the local coffee house to peruse the boards and take in the summer weather with a large iced mocha. Inside, I see that the barista at the teller is a little cutie, busy in the bustle of weekend hustle- in her zone; genuinely flustered at her militant boss and the snobs in the shop. The playful urge to flirt comes up inside of me, so when I finish ordering, I don't leave the teller right away- I lean in and say "hey.."

 

"Hm? Yes?"

 

I poke her lightly on the nose and say "Boop! Keep it up.. uh.. (reading her nametag) Rachel!" Then walk outside to chill on the couches out back of the shop.

If some stranger did that to me I'd have a serious "wtf" reaction. If I saw a guy do that I'd think less of him and if it did it to some other woman and it worked I'd also probably think less of her. I have trouble imagining two mentally healthy virtuous people being on either end of that equation. Specifically you're violating the space of a stranger by touching them and it seems a bit degrading as well. If you knew them already it might be different and a playful thing to do, but for a stranger (which this person is as you're needing to read their nametag), it seems like it would only work on someone with issues. Which seems to be what most of PUA is about, finding people with issues and instead of helping them with their desire for an asshole you're making yourself into an asshole to prey on them. Like, "Not my job to fix this person and her issues, might as well get some sex out of her by playing on her issues!". I mean if a woman has 5 kids are you even considering what this does to them seeing some guy come in and out of their life, with no intention or interest in sticking around, and treating their mom a certain way?

 

You saying there is material for "relationship game" just makes me think you're selling a package like the Bible. "There's something for everyone, pick what you like and roll with it! Pay no attention to all the stuff you don't like! Nothing wrong with the book!" You also presented this as the last type of game, your final saving grace, targeting what you think I'd be most accepting of. I'm trying to dissect the package and point out why people are rejecting it, not be wooed into accepting the package because it has some useful elements. I don't care how nice a guy is 98% of the time if he beats and derides me the other 2% of the time.

 

My original point was dealing with the potential immorality of the package. Pointing out the good is kind of missing the point. I'm suggesting a repackaging of the moral stuff without the immoral stuff and coming up with a new term for the package to differentiate it from the packages that are clearly immoral. If you want to bring this stuff to a philosophy forum that cares about morality then I think you need to remodel and rebrand your package for the different market. This also requires you be able to differentiate the immoral from the moral parts. And if you think the entire PUA package as various people present it is amoral then I'm not sure what to say to that.

[PatrickC]

Again, I'll just point out the "penguins example", wherein men wouldn't dare imagine themselves as penguins, and then predict the sexual responses of female penguins.  But, lo and behold, PatrickC is imagining himself as a woman and then predicting how women will respond. 

 

I found this rather funny. In particular, after you later said this.

 

What happens when I combine negging with deep philosophical discussions?  That's easy.  She gets mad at the negs, but becomes emotionally closer whenever I discuss deep philosophy. 

 

I sincerely hope you don't use similar arguments and any of the assortment of fallacies you've been using lately with Stefan in tonights call. Good luck.

[MMX2010]

I sincerely hope you don't use similar arguments and any of the assortment of fallacies you've been using lately with Stefan in tonights call. Good luck.

 

How is it a "fallacy" to tell you exactly what happens when I use negs on a woman in a conversation that also featured deep, philosophical conversation? 

 

 

So perhaps put more concisely into a question, what is the game?

 

 

The shortest answer is, "Game is whatever a man wants it to be.  Whatever intentions a man had before studying Game will be made manifest.  So the most crucial thing to do, before studying Game, is to ask yourself what your ultimate intentions are." 

 

For me, I've only three intentions: (1) To bring joy to every interaction I have with women, regardless of whether I get sex or not.  (2) To take the study of Game seriously, much like the way an engineering major studies engineering.  (3) To be an honest and devoted representative of Game itself. 

 

It is inevitable that any man who succeeds with Game will become more callous and more assholish, so the trick is to limit the degree which these behaviors define you as a man. 

[thebeardslastcall]

It is inevitable that any man who succeeds with Game will become more callous and more assholish

Well that about sums it up for me. That's a rather peculiar view to have given you're trying to say this is a worthwhile "product" to people who care about morality and decency.

 

I've got no Game, nor do I want it. Maybe that's my problem, maybe it's my deadly pride, or maybe it's my saving grace. Time has told, eventually I'll get to hear it.

 

[MMX2010]

Well that about sums it up for me. That's a rather peculiar view to have given you're trying to say this is a worthwhile "product" to people who care about morality and decency.

 

I've got no Game, nor do I want it. Maybe that's my problem, maybe it's my deadly pride, or maybe it's my saving grace. Time has told, eventually I'll get to hear it.

 

 

It happens for two reasons: (1) Women, especially younger, prettier women, inevitably respond more positively to callous aloofness than to readily-presented emotional empathy - (especially in the first stages of dating).  (2) There are so many socially-constructed myths against the efficacy and nature of PUA that anyone who succeeds at PUA becomes callous and assholish towards society-as-a-whole. 

 

The second part is particularly damaging.  Imagine discovering that your mother, your father, and your siblings were conspiring to defraud you.  That's what it feels like to discover that PUA works.  (And the description itself is not hyperbole.) 

[thebeardslastcall]

It happens for two reasons: (1) Women, especially younger, prettier women, inevitably respond more positively to callous aloofness than to readily-presented emotional empathy - (especially in the first stages of dating).  (2) There are so many socially-constructed myths against the efficacy and nature of PUA that anyone who succeeds at PUA becomes callous and assholish towards society-as-a-whole. 

Ah I took it another way. You're just saying it opens your eyes up to the problems with most of society and this makes you care a bit less about society as a byproduct.

 

The second part is particularly damaging.  Imagine discovering that your mother, your father, and your siblings were conspiring to defraud you.  That's what it feels like to discover that PUA works.  (And the description itself is not hyperbole.) 

Imagine discovering something akin to part of this at the age of 4. My parents also divorced at a young age. I've been on the outside my whole life. I think it's why I have no Game and don't much desire it, it's kind of disgusting to me how a lot of people interact with each other and the resulting disharmony a lot of it generates. I rejected it a very long time ago. It's also why I've been anti-religious since early childhood.

 

I'm not saying there aren't some truths to be had in PUA stuff, I'm just saying I don't like the game it promotes people to play, so I tend to reject it. I want a beautiful game or no game at all, never been a fan of ugly victories.

[Frosty]

You're right game is not immoral. Not sure why people want to keep leading it in that direction frankly.

 

I think I made a good case in another thread that subset of  PUA tactics are clearly fraudulent, such as outright lying, lying by omission and implicit lying/manipulation.

 

For example the line "hey I'm just on the way back to my friends and I want to settle a bet..." which is an example of a line taken from PUA sources is used with the specific intent to settle the mind of the person you're approaching that you're not alone at the bar/club which comes across as creepy, even when you don't have friends with you, you're just out alone trying out PUA tactics.

 

So this is unambiguously fraud, it's explicitly lying with the intent of personal gain which meets all common definitions of fraud, and of course fraud is commonly defined to be a violation of the NAP and hence immoral by that objective standard. We had a good discussion about that and no one in my view had posted a good rebuttal to it.

 

Obviously there's many other PUA tactics which do not fit this category, but there is definitely some that do.

[AncapFTW]

 

Not putting words in your mouth, Patrick.

 

Just saying A causes B. 

 

Once you say, "Game is mean't to lower a woman's natural defences from fucking fewer men.", you inevitably make people assume that you believe that women are irrational creatures who need masculine male leadership to save them from their hypergamous desires.  Basically, Game is (mostly) bad because hypergamy is (entirely) bad.

 

If you didn't believe that hypergamy is bad, you wouldn't frame Game as a way of getting past a woman's defenses.

 

 

 

I'll connect your post with thebeardslastcall's post, because they share the same error.

 

If Omegahero had asked, "What are the social, physical, and emotional behaviors by which female penguins determine which male penguins are suitable reproductive partners?", no man here would say, "Well, when I imagine myself as a penguin, these are the traits that I would like, so it must be true that female penguins like these traits."  Instead, you wouldn't imagine yourself as a penguin, because you're not a penguin.  Then you'd dispassionately observe female penguins, and make an educated guess." 

 

But in this thread, Omegahero asks whether PUA is manipulation, and thebeardslastcall's tactic was to imagine himself as a woman, and assert (or imply) (or expect) women to agree with him. 

 

And you, AncapFTW, are imagining yourself to be me and asserting (or implying) (or expecting) that I must want men to save women from themselves".

 

In your case, all I can do is say that you're wrong.  No further discussion required. 

 

Once again, you are telling me what I think.  Stop it.

 

Also, you specifically said that that is what you thought, so I wasn't implying anything, just repeating your statement.

[MMX2010]

I think I made a good case in another thread that subset of  PUA tactics are clearly fraudulent, such as outright lying, lying by omission and implicit lying/manipulation.

 

For example the line "hey I'm just on the way back to my friends and I want to settle a bet..." which is an example of a line taken from PUA sources is used with the specific intent to settle the mind of the person you're approaching that you're not alone at the bar/club which comes across as creepy, even when you don't have friends with you, you're just out alone trying out PUA tactics.

 

So this is unambiguously fraud, it's explicitly lying with the intent of personal gain which meets all common definitions of fraud, and of course fraud is commonly defined to be a violation of the NAP and hence immoral by that objective standard. We had a good discussion about that and no one in my view had posted a good rebuttal to it.

 

 

Stefan and I talked about this last night, and he agreed with you that certain PUA tactics were lies, but I didn't give him this counter-example. 

 

So the problem is that the media has spent (no joke) billions of dollars painting single men going out alone as creepy, thereby placing poisoning the well of your interaction with her before you've even said a word.  His solution is to "just be honest", and your solution is "don't commit fraud" - and you both assert that "honesty is the best policy" and "virtuous women won't find your going out alone to be creepy at all".

 

My counter-argument, which could very well be passive-aggressive is, "Are you kidding me?  You're living in a culture which poisoned the interaction by massive anti-male propaganda, and you want to turn a dishonest pick-up line into a massive indication of poor character on your part?  You're living in a world that has played dirty against you from the time you were born, and you want to be noble, true, and good?  Why not allay a woman's fears by using the fraudulent pick-up line and then play it straight from there?" 

[MMX2010]

Once again, you are telling me what I think.  Stop it.

 

Also, you specifically said that that is what you thought, so I wasn't implying anything, just repeating your statement.

 

Ancap: You either cannot read me accurately, or you don't understand the difference between an implication and a statement.

 

When you assert, (and don't pull the, "I didn't say that in those exact words!" crap) that "MMX2010 wants to save women from themselves." - and when I say, "I have not, and have never thought that way." - I have direct access to my brain, and you don't.

 

Thus, when I say, "I have not, and have never, desired to save women from themselves." - it is up to you to either 100% believe me or not.  But to say that I've directly asserted that "I want to save women from themselves." is dishonest on your part, because you refuse to accept that I don't think that way. 

[AncapFTW]

 

Ancap: You either cannot read me accurately, or you don't understand the difference between an implication and a statement.

 

When you assert, (and don't pull the, "I didn't say that in those exact words!" crap) that "MMX2010 wants to save women from themselves." - and when I say, "I have not, and have never thought that way." - I have direct access to my brain, and you don't.

 

Thus, when I say, "I have not, and have never, desired to save women from themselves." - it is up to you to either 100% believe me or not.  But to say that I've directly asserted that "I want to save women from themselves." is dishonest on your part, because you refuse to accept that I don't think that way. 

So, when someone asks "So are you advocating for something akin to a Masculine King (analogous to Plato's Philosopher King) , who can save women from themselves? OR are you just advocating men protect themselves while still being able to get sex?" and you respond "Both.  Those two practices aren't mutually exclusive." you aren't saying that at least some women need to be "saved from themselves"?

 

Are you just saying that SOMEONE needs to do that or are you practicing your doublespeak for when you run for political office?

[MMX2010]

So, when someone asks "So are you advocating for something akin to a Masculine King (analogous to Plato's Philosopher King) , who can save women from themselves? OR are you just advocating men protect themselves while still being able to get sex?" and you respond "Both.  Those two practices aren't mutually exclusive." you aren't saying that at least some women need to be "saved from themselves"?

 

Are you just saying that SOMEONE needs to do that or are you practicing your doublespeak for when you run for political office?

 

No.  Sorry. 

 

I quick-read the question and focused only on the Masculine King part of it. 

 

If WastachMan wants to imply that a Masculine King must save women from themselves, he's free to do so.  But I'm not looking to save a woman from herself.  She doesn't need saving from herself.  She needs saving from both this culture, and from the possessive men who don't understand nor empathize with her. 

[PatrickC]

I think I made a good case in another thread that subset of  PUA tactics are clearly fraudulent, such as outright lying, lying by omission and implicit lying/manipulation.

 

Yeah, I saw that thread. I think I also alluded to some PUA behaviour as verging on the fraudulant in the same one too. I can certainly see where you're coming from Frosty, but I was quite hesitant to claim the behaviour as immoral.

 

I don't know how familiar you are with UPB/APA. But it provides a much better framework for ascertaining moral behaviour than the NAP. The trouble with lying in the instance you mentioned could be akin to a girl wearing a push up bra with padding under her boobs. Make up too can often disguise a multitude of sins on a womens face, including her age.

 

The other problem with this kind of fraudulence is that it's mostly accepted by both parties. In other words the guy that eventually peels of Ms wonderbras bra only to find a pair fried eggs on her chest is unlikely to complain much while he's doing the do (so to speak) with her. Likewise the PUA that told a girl some porkie (lie) to get her attention has probably deliberately forgotten about his so called meeting with his friends. Happy by then that she has his company to herself. There is a kind of complicitness that takes place between both parties in this regard.

 

Of course to you and me this kind of behaviour comes off as creepy, insecure and lacking integrity. But we can't claim they have violated UPB. Which would be my guide to immoral actions. However, I would say the behaviour lacks virtue and integrity, if that makes sense.

[AncapFTW]

No.  Sorry. 

 

I quick-read the question and focused only on the Masculine King part of it. 

 

If WastachMan wants to imply that a Masculine King must save women from themselves, he's free to do so.  But I'm not looking to save a woman from herself.  She doesn't need saving from herself.  She needs saving from both this culture, and from the possessive men who don't understand nor empathize with her. 

And how is lieing to women to get them to sleep with you NOT being possessive?  How does it empathize with her?

 

 

Stefan and I talked about this last night, and he agreed with you that certain PUA tactics were lies, but I didn't give him this counter-example. 

 

So the problem is that the media has spent (no joke) billions of dollars painting single men going out alone as creepy, thereby placing poisoning the well of your interaction with her before you've even said a word.  His solution is to "just be honest", and your solution is "don't commit fraud" - and you both assert that "honesty is the best policy" and "virtuous women won't find your going out alone to be creepy at all".

 

My counter-argument, which could very well be passive-aggressive is, "Are you kidding me?  You're living in a culture which poisoned the interaction by massive anti-male propaganda, and you want to turn a dishonest pick-up line into a massive indication of poor character on your part?  You're living in a world that has played dirty against you from the time you were born, and you want to be noble, true, and good?  Why not allay a woman's fears by using the fraudulent pick-up line and then play it straight from there?" 

So, because she's been told that men will say anything to get in her pants, and will do whatever it takes, you want to confirm this by lying to her and saying anything to get in her pants?

 

How are you going to show that the stereotype is wrong by being the stereotype?

[MMX2010]

And how is lieing to women to get them to sleep with you NOT being possessive?  How does it empathize with her?

 

 

So the most important thing I posted on FDR was a joke, but practically no one understood either the joke or its importance. 

 

The joke went: "If OmegaHero09 were to ask, 'What behaviors should male penguins do to make themselves more sexually attractive to female penguins?' absolutely no one would first imagine themselves to be a penguin and then, based on those imaginings declare, 'These behaviors must be done!  These behaviors will work!'  But when OmegaHero09 asked, 'Is PUA manipulation?' practically everyone first imagined themselves as a woman and then, based on these imaginings, declared, 'YES! PUA is manipulation!'"

 

As I said, practically no one understood the joke, which means they didn't realize the joke was at their expense.  Which means that they couldn't alter their behavior. 

 

 

 

 

So, because she's been told that men will say anything to get in her pants, and will do whatever it takes, you want to confirm this by lying to her and saying anything to get in her pants?  How are you going to show that the stereotype is wrong by being the stereotype?

 

You need to study the joke about the penguins. 

[AncapFTW]

 

So the most important thing I posted on FDR was a joke, but practically no one understood either the joke or its importance.

 

The joke went: "If OmegaHero09 were to ask, 'What behaviors should male penguins do to make themselves more sexually attractive to female penguins?' absolutely no one would first imagine themselves to be a penguin and then, based on those imaginings declare, 'These behaviors must be done! These behaviors will work!' But when OmegaHero09 asked, 'Is PUA manipulation?' practically everyone first imagined themselves as a woman and then, based on these imaginings, declared, 'YES! PUA is manipulation!'"

 

As I said, practically no one understood the joke, which means they didn't realize the joke was at their expense. Which means that they couldn't alter their behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You need to study the joke about the penguins.

I didn't realize you considered pingins moral agents. Tell me, what lead you to such a belief?

 

You are arguing based on the success at producing the desired result, why we are arguing ethics, or at the very least that sex is meaningless as an end goal.

 

Let me put it this way. I want pot. I go up to a dealer and start complaining about my cancer and how much pain I'm in so that he feels sorry for me and gives it to me for free. Now, I don't have cancer, but I didn't use violence or the threat of violence to get it, so no NAP violation. Was it ok for me to do that?

 

Of course, the difference is that dealers for your desired object, sex, are far more numerous, so it's hard to deplete the free supply.

[thebeardslastcall]

The joke went: "If OmegaHero09 were to ask, 'What behaviors should male penguins do to make themselves more sexually attractive to female penguins?' absolutely no one would first imagine themselves to be a penguin and then, based on those imaginings declare, 'These behaviors must be done!  These behaviors will work!'  But when OmegaHero09 asked, 'Is PUA manipulation?' practically everyone first imagined themselves as a woman and then, based on these imaginings, declared, 'YES! PUA is manipulation!'"

 

Are you assuming there are no females in this discussion?

 

Also manipulation can be externally judged and doesn't require being in the other person's viewpoint. Generally it's easier to judge manipulation externally, because the person being manipulated doesn't realize it, as that's kind of the point. If they realized it, the effect might be negated. Does a female need to put herself into a guy's shoes to realize breast implants deceive a guy and can make her more attractive? Talking about penguins isn't a fair comparison, but if you observe them enough you could guess what makes one more or less attractive to the opposite sex. Likewise you can observe what works for other guys and judge what will make you more attractive. Whether or not it "works" is independent of whether or not it is manipulation.

 

Also how exactly are you determining that people are imagining themselves as women to come to their conclusions? Also if you practically tell us some of what you are doing is manipulation by how you describe the behaviors we don't need to guess or imagine anything. If you tell me someone is lying to a woman I don't need to put myself into her shoes to see if I feel like I'm being lied to or not, as that's irrelevant, as is whether or not it makes the guy seem more or less attractive to the woman.