Another PUA post...

[MMX2010]

Are you assuming there are no females in this discussion?

 

 

No.  I'm observing that there are no females in this discussion.  Then I'm observing that the discussion is happening in spite of this. 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

She doesn't need to put herself into a guy's shoes to make a guess as to how guys would react.  But she does need to put in the breast implants and then observe how men react to determine whether her guess was correct.  When she does this, she'll realize: some guys like the implants, some guys loathe the implants, and some guys don't care about the implants.  She was partially right, but mostly wrong. 

 

What's missing from this thread is the part where females chime in, and allow us to determine whether our conjectures were correct.  (And yet, despite their absence, you persist in arguing your point.) 

 

 

 

 

? 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.

 

No!

 

If you were observing penguin behavior, you can first hypothesize that, "Behavior X is bad because it's manipulation, and the female penguins will see through it."  But if you observe that Behavior X is highly favored by females, what do you do next?  (1) Declare the penguins stupid, because you're smarter than them, and say, "It's still manipulation!" or (2) Declare your prediction to be wrong, because the penguins weren't upset by the behavior? 

 

Do you finally understand the joke about the penguins? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also how exactly are you determining that people are imagining themselves as women to come to their conclusions?

 

By noticing what they're not doing and not saying.    

 

If they understood the joke about the penguins, they would understand how to observe penguin behavior without pre-conceived biases.  Then they'd realize they had pre-conceived biases about female behavior.  Then they'd apologize.  And then they'd stop arguing. 

 

Are you still arguing your point?  Yes?  Then you don't get the joke about the penguins! 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Right.  So if you begin the discussion with pre-conceived biases, and I agree to use the language matching your pre-conceived biases, do the biases-themselves become true?  Or are they still biases? 

 

At this point, I think you totally get the joke about the penguins, but you don't want to change your mind.  Which is fine.  No one's forcing you.  But I've had discussions about this very topic with women, and can you predict how they reacted to my argument? 

[thebeardslastcall]

 

No.  I'm observing that there are no females in this discussion.  Then I'm observing that the discussion is happening in spite of this. 

That's a yes, you are assuming there are no females here.

 

What's missing from this thread is the part where females chime in, and allow us to determine whether our conjectures were correct.  (And yet, despite their absence, you persist in arguing your point.) 

 

What is my point?

 

Do you finally understand the joke about the penguins? 

Are you still arguing your point?  Yes?  Then you don't get the joke about the penguins! 

 

Or I don't think the joke matters.

 

 

At this point, I think you totally get the joke about the penguins, but you don't want to change your mind.  Which is fine.  No one's forcing you.  But I've had discussions about this very topic with women, and can you predict how they reacted to my argument? 

Change my mind from what to what exactly? What do you think I'm rejecting that you think I know as true?

[MMX2010]

Change my mind from what to what exactly?

 

Change your mind from, "PUA is manipulation, because the dictionary definition of manipulation is this, and PUA fits the definition.", to "I dunno whether PUA is manipulation.  So the women should chime in with their emotional experiences of PUA; and, if I disagree with them, then I am wrong."

[David Ottinger]

Yes, it is manipulation.  However, there is an unspoken rule about the manipulation.  A Fight Club analogy comes to mind.  Except, instead of fighting, the outcome is sex.  It is a game.  The question is whether you want to play it or not.  

[MMX2010]

Yes, it is manipulation.  However, there is an unspoken rule about the manipulation.  A Fight Club analogy comes to mind.  Except, instead of fighting, the outcome is sex.  It is a game.  The question is whether you want to play it or not.  

 

So this guy I know, who doesn't play manipulation games, concludes that the only purpose of these manipulation games is sex.  He can't possibly know through experience that this is so, because, like I said, he doesn't play manipulation games. 

 

Since he doesn't know through experience, he must know through having been told somewhere - whether through books, articles, podcasts, media-watching...something. 

 

It doesn't occur to him to ask, "If the majority of people in a group use manipulation for Specific Purpose A, does this mean that manipulation cannot possibly be used to accomplish Specific Purposes B through Z?"  Nor, "If manipulation can indeed be used for Specific Purposes B through Z, does it automatically follow that every one of those specific purposes is immoral and/or undesirable?" 

[David Ottinger]

My post was far more nuanced than you presume.   But, I don't really care to talk to someone who is this passive aggressive. 

[MMX2010]

My post was far more nuanced than you presume.   But, I don't really care to talk to someone who is this passive aggressive. 

 

So you don't prefer to clarify your nuanced post in order for the truth about PUA and manipulation to be revealed?  You prefer instead to shelve your argument because of perceived passive-aggression? 

[thebeardslastcall]

My post was far more nuanced than you presume.   But, I don't really care to talk to someone who is this passive aggressive. 

 

So you don't prefer to clarify your nuanced post in order for the truth about PUA and manipulation to be revealed?  You prefer instead to shelve your argument because of perceived passive-aggression? 

 

I can see the end of the FDR board. It's going to come when someone here displays aggressive passiveness and someone points it out and everyone's head explodes. Massive joint mind blow, that's how a philosophy board ends.

 

"Here lies FDR, they wanted to blow the minds of the world, instead they turned on each other and blew their own minds."

 

Then philosophy forums will be considered dangerous and get added to the blacklist as a forbidden genjitsu, a dangerous mind art. Logic and reason will be banned as leading to dangerous mind blows and we'll enter a new dark era. Let us avoid these dangerous times...

 

Don't educate yourself today about this dangerous topic! Especially don't aggressively not do something. Calmly don't educate yourself, relax, and go back to your standard ignorance and passive aggressive behaviors.

[thebeardslastcall]

Change your mind from, "PUA is manipulation, because the dictionary definition of manipulation is this, and PUA fits the definition.", to "I dunno whether PUA is manipulation.  So the women should chime in with their emotional experiences of PUA; and, if I disagree with them, then I am wrong."

 

Let me try putting it another way. You didn't just convince yourself of PUA, you also convinced yourself of how to measure, judge, and justify PUA. Whenever someone does something morally questionable they also come up with a way to justify it to themselves and others and how to measure and judge the actions as okay. Now you're telling me I should ask the women how they feel about PUA as if that's a valid way to measure and judge PUA and then to base whether or not I'm right or wrong off of what they say. You haven't explained why I should do this and why this makes any difference to what I've been saying. You do it because you like the answers you get and it allows you to feel okay about what you are doing and you can somehow say this makes it okay. This redirection has also spared you from addressing what I've said more directly since you're just directing me to someone else and disregarding my opinion to ask someone else how they feel about the topic.

 

Should I listen to this girl and then go "Okay, I was wrong, it's okay to be beaten by a guy" ?  :

 

 

[J. D. Stembal]

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.

 

Both of the statements that I highlighted in bold assume that a woman isn't the final of arbiter of sexual intercourse and the family, that men can somehow perform what amounts to mind control. See Briffault's Law.

 

I certainly agree with Stefan about female responsibility, and how it needs to greatly improve. Until then, you cannot only blame men who want to score with attractive women. Men are following the biological programming of our species; the more women with which we mate, the greater the likelihood of offspring. Why aren't women being more chaste to keep the PUAs in check? That is the question we should be asking, not whether pick-up is deceitful or not. To imply that it is deceitful trickery is to suggest that women aren't responsible over sex, for which they are completely responsible.

 

To sum it up, it is the fault of women that pick-up works. The fact that there are so few women who can "see through the game" is a testimony to the severity of their lapse in judgement if you assume that the default biological position for a woman is to guard her eggs at all costs.

 

Personally, I don't subscribe to the chaste woman theory. There is much evidence (see Sex at Dawn), from within modern primitive cultures, the history of our civilization, and the closely related primate species, coupled with our biological development, that females are naturally far from chaste. However, we have somehow constructed this traditional narrative (perhaps out of the social mores of religion) that the female of the species is meant to be very selective with her eggs.

 

Nearly all the evidence points to the contrary argument. Biologically, women must mate frequently and often. Our genes and hormonal circuits (see The Chemistry Between Us) don't know about modern medicine and birth control. A woman's body doesn't know that many children no longer die before the age of six. Our hormones don't care about taxes and fiat currency.

 

Of course, rationally, everyone knows that you can medically put off having kids, who are resource vacuums, usually through hormonal tinkering, and that mating with someone else is a conscious choice and not totally biologically determined, but you can't have a fruitful debate about human sexuality without first explicitly pointing out whether you are discussing biological tendencies or rational free choice. We risk confusing the two in this thread.

[WasatchMan]

Now you're telling me I should ask the women how they feel about PUA as if that's a valid way to measure and judge PUA and then to base whether or not I'm right or wrong off of what they say. You haven't explained why I should do this and why this makes any difference to what I've been saying.

 

I think he seems to think that men and women are as different as humans and penguins.  Obvious red herring, obvious.

I certainly agree with Stefan about female responsibility, and how it needs to greatly improve. Until then, you cannot blame men who want to score with attractive women. Men are following the biological programming of our species; the more women with which we mate, the greater the likelihood of offspring. Why aren't women being more chaste to keep the PUAs in check? That is the question we should be asking, not whether pick-up is deceitful or not. To imply that it is deceitful is to suggest that women aren't responsible over sex, which they are - completely.

 

We can't blame them, but we can make arguments about why this isn't the best course of action.  Just like we can make arguments to women that making yourself up like a sex clown isn't the best course of action. One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming.

 

We are also talking about pursuing recreational sex, which is not why our biological programming even exists.  You could even say that nature is combating the rise in recreational sex through the near epidemic levels of STDs now present.  Our biological programming exists to keep the species going, not have really great and frequent orgasms and feel like a Masculine King because you can stick your dick inside a lot of women. I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego. Maybe it is just me, but I don't prefer lots of recreational sex because I know that is not the purpose of sex (however, I also experienced some of the consequences of this recreational sex mentality in my early 20s).

[PatrickC]

Both of the statements that I highlighted in bold assume that a woman isn't the final of arbiter of sexual intercourse and the family, that men can somehow perform what amounts to mind control. See Briffault's Law.

 

This is interesting and quite funny too, given the obvious contradiction. PUA is all about attempting mind control over females. In much the same way as hot pants lady will try to control the mind of the man she's interested in.

 

It's quid pro pro in the pick up game for many of either gender at this level. But I repeat myself.

[J. D. Stembal]

This is interesting and quite funny too, given the obvious contradiction. PUA is all about attempting mind control over females. In much the same way as hot pants lady will try to control the mind of the man she's interested in.

 

It's quid pro pro in the pick up game for many of either gender at this level. But I repeat myself.

 

Then, this is why we are coming into disagreement in the thread. To quote Ayn Rand,

 

 

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

 

However, which premise is incorrect? Or are both incorrect?

 

We need to agree on a universal definition of what successful pick-up entails. Feminists or traditionalists favor framing the practice as outright lying, manipulation or deception, while game, at least as I understand it from reading The Way of the Superior Man, focuses on empirical reality, biology and the consequences of sexual dimorphism within the context of modern times.

 

Patrick, do you believe that mind control is possible? How can pick-up be successful if it does not actually rely on mind control? (You used the word attempted.)

 

No, mind control is not any more possible than deriving morality from the insanity of religion.

 

More male and female input is requested!

 

Have you been picked-up successfully? Have you picked-up others? I have been successful in having intercourse with women shortly after first meeting them, but I would not call myself a conscious student of game theory. I read one book tangentially on the subject called How to Succeed with Women when I was 22, but as far as my sexual habits are concerned, I am largely acting out my childhood traumas.

 

For me, it's not a game. It's neglect and abuse coupled with a full head of hair and a winning smile and a desperate need to self-medicate neurochemically. I feel physically ill when I think about it in this context.

[shirgall]

It's quid pro pro in the pick up game for many of either gender at this level. But I repeat myself.

 

Indeed, my experience was that even in the 80s that both sides were playing a game and it was incredibly refreshing and rare to find people that *weren't* playing games until I was much older.

 

I married at 35.

[PatrickC]

Patrick, do you believe that mind control is possible? How can pick-up be successful if it does not actually rely on mind control? (You used the word attempted.)

 

Well, in fairness you were inferring that I thought PUA were using mind control, which just seemed silly to me.

 

That said, I think PUA are using techniques that they hope will point a lady to their dick. To what degree they are successful depends on the suspecptibility to those techniques of the woman they approach. PUA's wrongly think it will work on ALL women. It's just their 'game' that failed they think.

 

Negging is a classic example of a PUA technique I know that doesn't work with every lady (tried it). Anecdotally the kinds of ladies that were suspectible to it, were either insecure, narcissistic, submissive and/or quite aggressive women. Is that mind control, probably not. The negging probably just triggers certain women (dependent on their histories) into attraction. The fact that so many women are seemingly suspectible to it would seem to infer the sheer scale of poor parenting many women have had.

 

EDIT - Fathers teasing daughters springs to mind when I think about women that enjoy being negged.

[J. D. Stembal]

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.

 

...

 

However, PUA will often exploit signs in women they are interacting with in order that they become more compliant with them for sex.

 

...

 

PUA is all about attempting mind control over females.

 

In the interest of not putting words into your mouth, what are you implying with the above statements?

 

Furthermore, we still need to work on a definition of what pick-up or game theory is. I've never purposely "negged" a woman, but I've made plenty of statements which women found objectionable. I come from the school of thought that says that if you find a woman attractive upon first meeting her in person, you should compliment at least two aspects of her physical appearance, which includes her clothing.

 

(I love your smile. or Your shoes are adorable.)

 

Also, you should touch her several times and make a lot of eye contact, but not overtly, such as aggressive groping or openly staring at her assets.

 

Why would any reasonable human being think that insulting someone is a good way to determine sexual marketplace value? In my experience, only women do this maliciously with potential mates to test for alpha qualities, hence the "shit test". I wasn't aware of this female strategy for a long time, but it was most definitely happening to me.

 

I've been deliberately insulted many times by both genders. The word, metro-sexual, springs to mind.

That said, I think PUA are using techniques that they hope will point a lady to their dick. To what degree they are successful depends on the suspecptibility to those techniques of the woman they approach. PUA's wrongly think it will work on ALL women. It's just their 'game' that failed they think.

 

Why would a pick-up artist assume game works on all women? The strategy is predicated on the fact that the majority of women are put-off or do not know what to make of flamboyant, charismatic, aggressive, and persistent men.

 

A man who is sure of himself doesn't care why a woman isn't attracted to him. He cares about why she is attracted to him.

 

Again, you are framing success as tricking a woman into being attracted to a man. Why do you insist that sexual success with woman must involve a certain degree of misdirection, and that women must be susceptible to it in order for it to succeed?

 

Have you considered the possibility that pick-up artists tend to have more success because they have admirable qualities, some of which I mentioned above? Have you succeeded in attracting a woman? Did you have to fool her in order for her to be attracted to you? No, so why should it be any different for the PUA?

[SigmaTau]

I tried PUA, but the only women (in my experience) I attracted with it,))) well..... I feel silly looking back at that period of my life.. If you use it, I wish you all the best.

[David Ottinger]

I can see the end of the FDR board. It's going to come when someone here displays aggressive passiveness and someone points it out and everyone's head explodes. Massive joint mind blow, that's how a philosophy board ends.

 

"Here lies FDR, they wanted to blow the minds of the world, instead they turned on each other and blew their own minds."

 

Then philosophy forums will be considered dangerous and get added to the blacklist as a forbidden genjitsu, a dangerous mind art. Logic and reason will be banned as leading to dangerous mind blows and we'll enter a new dark era. Let us avoid these dangerous times...

 

Don't educate yourself today about this dangerous topic! Especially don't aggressively not do something. Calmly don't educate yourself, relax, and go back to your standard ignorance and passive aggressive behaviors.

 

 

 

Sophistry is the art of reframing a premise, a point, or principle in order to obscure another's perception of reality.  There is no commitment to truth as truth is not the objective. In other words, it's politics, not philosophy.  

 

 

In short, it is a form of epistemological conquest.  Hence the saying, "All is fair in love and war."  Which, mind you, is not a truth, but a perception.  Or, better said: A presumption.  It's just another way of saying, "It's all relative."  And, this is exactly what the guy in the OP was promoting.

 

 

These phrases serves to rationalize and compartmentalize one's behavior in order to mentally distance oneself from the truth; from objective reality.  This sort of mentality is an adaptation to the social environment.  

 

 

Many of us who are drawn to voluntaryism, as well as this forum, speak out against the inherent violence in today's culture.  But, we're not the only ones. (Albeit, I find we have the more thought out perspective.)  The typical fate and threat to women in a war is rape, hence the 'rape culture' idiom.  Unfortunately, it is too narrow of a perspective to see the larger picture, so it has various misconceptions insofar as to scapegoat men.  And, I won't even get into the *politics* of feminism that produced it as that would be a tangent in this thread.

 

 

What I'm driving at here is that those who want to engage in acts of conquest, thereby adhering to the principles of conquest, have no use for moral arguments except when it serves to establish a centralized form of order -- which, in a word, is: statism.   How this order is achieved via epistemological conquest, i.e. winning over the hearts and minds of the people.  

 

 

Of course, on a more micro scale, you can make that a single person or simply the opposite sex.  So, the manipulation can go so far as to make others believe you're a god or a goddess, e.g. pharaohs of Egypt. Or, the abstraction can be less grandiose and simply be referred to as "alpha."

 

 

 

And, as far as this board is concerned, I respect it too much to engage in a mockery of others who participate here.  To do so would be counter productive with respects to the intentions of this forum.  So, I think it's silly to think it is going to die because people self-govern insofar as to engage in more productive conversations.  

 

Philosophy is not a battle of wits.  That is sophistry.  There is no race to the truth as it is not a competition.   Any conflict that arises is between the self and the truth lest we engage in sophistry.  

 

And, before this is misconstrued, it should go without saying that none of us are omniscient, so we all have our blind spots.  Consider that truth is universally preferable, so on some level there is always a commitment to truth.  So, telling someone who is dealing with a particular cognitive dissonance that he/she is not committed to truth is counter productive as it will not fit his/her paradigm, specifically in respect to one's perception of the self.

 

In other words, I have no intentions of challenging people's self identity.  Think of yourself what you will.  My interests is to discuss ideas.  And, in this particular thread, I find we are discussing the nature and qualities of particular mating strategies.  

 

And, as the saying toward a mating partner goes, "If sex with you is so wrong, I don't want to be right,"  well, to say the least, it highlights very well the hold our most primal instinct has on the topic.

 

And, as I alluded to in my initial post, it can be more sport than war, but that is a fine line.  But, either way, the art of seduction is still manipulation, and it is not gender specific.  And, when it is a game, there is nothing wrong with it.  However, when the principle of equal consideration is violated, then the arrangement becomes immoral.

 

 

 

[J. D. Stembal]

I tried PUA, but the only women (in my experience) I attracted with it,))) well..... I feel silly looking back at that period of my life.. If you use it, I wish you all the best.

 

Specifically, what did you do? What was the reaction? It is not so clear other than that you feel silly about it.

[SigmaTau]

Specifically, what did you do? What was the reaction? It is not so clear other than that you feel silly about it.

 

Nothing exotic, funny, cocky,  stuff from David D'Angelo, Mystery,.(long time ago 2009, I am not sure about names). opening with a little neg and tease,.... It got me over my terrible "approach fear"..   in the end I found it silly because I had to jump to all the hoops ,.., and I found it an incredible waste of time.  But my personal choices and feelings are mine, so this is not meant as a generic statement. I have changed lifestyle now,   I work out a lot, do a lot of self-study/reading. I have no time for clubbing whatsoever.

[MMX2010]

 

Let me try putting it another way. You didn't just convince yourself of PUA, you also convinced yourself of how to measure, judge, and justify PUA. Whenever someone does something morally questionable they also come up with a way to justify it to themselves and others and how to measure and judge the actions as okay.

 

It works the other way around, too, dude.    Whenever someone refuses to do an ambiguously immoral action, they also convince themselves of how to measure, judge, and justify their non-action. 

 

In fact, in the book Mistakes Are Made But Not By Me, there's a research study which indicates this (shouldn't be) surprising discovery: If a person had absolutely no inclination to perform an ambiguously immoral action, the person doesn't perform the action, and doesn't have a strong emotional reaction to this avoidance.  BUT if the person had very strongly considered performing the ambiguously immoral action, then the person will have a very strong emotional reaction to this avoidance, which becomes both an extended internal monologue and a desire to condemn others who perform that immoral action. 

 

In short, the more strongly you almost yield to temptation, the more strongly you congratulate yourself for resisting AND the more strongly you want to punish others who yield to it. 

 

 

 

 

Now you're telling me I should ask the women how they feel about PUA as if that's a valid way to measure and judge PUA and then to base whether or not I'm right or wrong off of what they say. You haven't explained why I should do this and why this makes any difference to what I've been saying.

 

 

I tried a nice little joke to get you to understand, and now you're asking for a logical explanation? 

 

Okay, here goes. 

 

How would you feel if I "magically accused you" of being a misogynistic coward, someone who refuses to approach women because you secretly hate them - and, because of your hateful jealousy, you don't want anyone else to succeed with women either?  Note, I'm not actually accusing you of being that way, I'm just asking how would you feel if I were?

 

More importantly, what sorts of arguments could you make to refute my accusation?  Why, none of course.  Because everything you say will be held against you in the twisted kangaroo court that is my mind. 

 

Do you know how a woman feels whenever you say, "PUA is manipulation!"?  (The exact same way you would feel if I accused you of being a cowardly, hateful, misogynist who doesn't want anyone to succeed with women.) 

 

 

 

 

You do it because you like the answers you get and it allows you to feel okay about what you are doing and you can somehow say this makes it okay. This redirection has also spared you from addressing what I've said more directly since you're just directing me to someone else and disregarding my opinion to ask someone else how they feel about the topic.

 

Should I listen to this girl and then go "Okay, I was wrong, it's okay to be beaten by a guy" ? 

 

 

No, but you should ask yourself how she would feel if you were to insert yourself into her life and try to "cleanse her" from the desire to be hit by that guy.  How would she feel as you told her that you hope she doesn't get beaten again?  How would she feel if you were to do that thirty times in thirty days? 

Sophistry is the art of reframing a premise, a point, or principle in order to obscure another's perception of reality.  There is no commitment to truth as truth is not the objective. In other words, it's politics, not philosophy.  

 

 

Many of us who are drawn to voluntaryism, as well as this forum, speak out against the inherent violence in today's culture.  But, we're not the only ones.

 

What I'm driving at here is that those who want to engage in acts of conquest, thereby adhering to the principles of conquest, have no use for moral arguments except when it serves to establish a centralized form of order -- which, in a word, is: statism.   How this order is achieved via epistemological conquest, i.e. winning over the hearts and minds of the people.  

 

Interesting argument, but it has a gigantic problem with it.

 

John uses PUA on Aimee.  Aimee loves it and sleeps with John.  Phil cries, "MANIPULATION!" 

 

How can it NOT be sophistry for Phil to yell, "MANIPULATION!"? 

 

------------------

 

Notice, there's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between Phil saying, "Personally speaking, I find John's actions to be manipulation, so I never engage in them.  But if John likes doing it, and Aimee likes receiving it, then they can voluntarily do whatever they want." and Phil saying, "MANIPULATION!" - (while either expecting or hoping that Aimee will dump John because of his accusation). 

 

Do you understand the difference?  And do you understand how your first reply to this thread looks exactly like the second action, where Phil yells "MANIPULATION", while hoping every chick hears him and resists PUA? 

I think he seems to think that men and women are as different as humans and penguins.  Obvious red herring, obvious.

 

 

Not obvious, WastachMan. 

 

For example, when you say, "We can't blame them, but we can make arguments about why this isn't the best course of action.  Just like we can make arguments to women that making yourself up like a sex clown isn't the best course of action. One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming.", you're assuming that males and females react to philosophy in the exact same ways. 

 

But just one click on the "Members List", followed by less than ten minutes of gender-identifying the members, leads to a very sobering point: Less than 5% of FDR is female.   

 

So, how can you assume that men and women react to philosophy in the exact same way, when the FDR membership is 95% male? 

[WasatchMan]

So, how can you assume that men and women react to philosophy in the exact same way, when the FDR membership is 95% male? 

 

I don't.  I assume UPB and philosophy applies for both men and women because both have the capacity for rational consciousness.  I will not take this away from women.

[MMX2010]

I don't.  I assume UPB and philosophy applies for both men and women because both have the capacity for rational consciousness.  I will not take this away from women.

 

 

UPB deals with moral violations, including but mostly limited to acts of aggression, like rape and murder.

 

Your original statement, "We can't blame them, but we can make arguments about why this isn't the best course of action.  Just like we can make arguments to women that making yourself up like a sex clown isn't the best course of action. One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming.", doesn't mention any acts of aggression or violence, so UPB doesn't apply. 

[WasatchMan]

UPB deals with moral violations, including but mostly limited to acts of aggression, like rape and murder.

 

Your original statement, "We can't blame them, but we can make arguments about why this isn't the best course of action.  Just like we can make arguments to women that making yourself up like a sex clown isn't the best course of action. One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming.", doesn't mention any acts of aggression or violence, so UPB doesn't apply. 

 

That is why I added "and philosophy".. details, I know, details...

[MMX2010]

That is why I added "and philosophy".. details, I know, details...

 

Philosophy teaches you that you can't use it to declare-as-false-or-immoral any woman's voluntary aesthetic choice. 

 

At best, you can express your subjective dislike of their choices, but you can't argue that their choices are wrong / bad / evil. 

[WasatchMan]

Philosophy teaches you that you can't use it to declare-as-false-or-immoral any woman's voluntary aesthetic choice. 

 

At best, you can express your subjective dislike of their choices, but you can't argue that their choices are wrong / bad / evil. 

 

I agree with the evil part. Wrong and bad I am not sure about because they are kind of subjective words that could mean aesthetic preferences. This is also my reasoning for framing my response in the context of "One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming." 

 

I know we disagree on this because you think it is wrong to ostracize people for aesthetic preferences, but I am perfectly happy to do so.

[MMX2010]

 

I know we disagree on this because you think it is wrong to ostracize people for aesthetic preferences, but I am perfectly happy to do so.

 

Yes, I know.  You're perfectly happy to ostracize people for disagreeing with your imperfect and imprecise arguments.

 

For example, you say, "I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego. Maybe it is just me, but I don't prefer lots of recreational sex because I know that is not the purpose of sex (however, I also experienced some of the consequences of this recreational sex mentality in my early 20s)."

 

When you say, "I know that is not the purpose of sex.", you speak as if you know this is true for everyone.  But how do you know that?  And if you don't know that, but act like you know that, then what kind of person does that make you? 

 

Yes, you're "perfectly happy" to ostracize people who disagree with you, but your subjective feelings alone aren't the sole arbiter, right?  (Or do everyone else's subjective feelings get dismissed?) 

[WasatchMan]

Yes, I know.  You're perfectly happy to ostracize people for disagreeing with your imperfect and imprecise arguments.

 

For example, you say, "I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego. Maybe it is just me, but I don't prefer lots of recreational sex because I know that is not the purpose of sex (however, I also experienced some of the consequences of this recreational sex mentality in my early 20s)."

 

When you say, "I know that is not the purpose of sex.", you speak as if you know this is true for everyone.  But how do you know that?  And if you don't know that, but act like you know that, then what kind of person does that make you? 

 

Yes, you're "perfectly happy" to ostracize people who disagree with you, but your subjective feelings alone aren't the sole arbiter, right?  (Or do everyone else's subjective feelings get dismissed?) 

 

ummm.. because sex is for making babies.. are you really going to disagree with that?

[MMX2010]

ummm.. because sex is for making babies.. are you really going to disagree with that?

 

Yes, absolutely.  With birth control technology and other surgical options, this is no longer true. 

[Frosty]

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.

 

I've read UPB and near as I can tell it's a logical extension of the NAP, it's really just saying "this is an objective moral principle from which we can derive a range of non-acceptable behaviour" one of these behaviours is fraud.

 

Women do often wear make-up, push up bra's and high heels etc, but these aren't explicit lies, they're still manipulative because they're done for effect, which in and of itself is probably not virtuous. But it's not a secret that these things are being used, it's generally speaking extremely obvious, there is no reasonable expectation that this is a natural representation of how she looks unless you ask her and her answer is dishonest, then we're in lie territory.

 

There are plenty of PUA tactics that more or less fall under this category and I would call manipulative and hence not very virtuous, but I would not call them immoral, something like renting a nice car to arrive at a club to give the impression you're wealthier than you really are. That's manipulative but it's not an explicit lie, it works on the basis that the average person will assume its your car and that assumption is erroneous. However just like with the female example, if someone asks and you explicitly lie to cover yourself then this is back in to the fraudulent territory and immoral.

 

I also think mentality is very telling, there is a clear difference between someone generally being honest in all their interactions, and someone who is constantly looking to manipulate to gain an edge. If I was on the receiving end of manipulation, whether or not it was considered immoral wouldn't really matter to me, just the mentality of that person to manipulate would be off putting enough.

[PatrickC]

I also think mentality is very telling, there is a clear difference between someone generally being honest in all their interactions, and someone who is constantly looking to manipulate to gain an edge. If I was on the receiving end of manipulation, whether or not it was considered immoral wouldn't really matter to me, just the mentality of that person to manipulate would be off putting enough.

 

Yes, I think this has been shown to be true at least in the anecdotal cases I've been familiar with where they used a style of PUA tactic that lasted into their marriage. Only to find that the woman got sick of it eventually and given the favour divorce brings women these days, was all too easy to kick them to the kerb. Sure a lot of them had a lot of very good character traits and in the cases I knew were often excellent fathers too. But for many of them they just didn't adapt to a more honest relationship with their wife. Or they did change, but their wife didn't and her attraction for them started to wane.

 

Of course my experience is just anecdotal and perhaps there are some relationships that start out this way and last into marriage, parenthood and a fulfilling relationship. But the short term gains PUA's experience are not a magic wand to a virtuous womans heart, if that's what they're looking for.

 

On an aside I've had my fair share of relationships with women over the years. Women (not all) can be way more cunning and often more vengeful than men when it comes to failed relationships. They can also accrue plenty of allies to further their cause. Which is why MGTOW was such a useful juncture in my life, as a means to step back and re-evaluate my approach, needs and desires when it came to women. However, I get it, for the guys that are still virgins late into their 20's or younger even. I can appreciate the frustration they must feel and how it's way too easy for me to say, just wait for that virtuous woman. So give PUA a go and get it out of your system, if that's what you really want. Just be conscious of what you are doing and as always play safe.

[WasatchMan]

Yes, absolutely.  With birth control technology and other surgical options, this is no longer true. 

 

That is called modifying consequences, not purpose.  Wearing a bullet proof vest does not change the purpose of a gun, it modifies the consequences of getting hit with a bullet.

 

Your whole thing was to shame me (Quote: "And if you don't know that [purpose of sex], but act like you know that, then what kind of person does that make you?") for assuming to know the purpose of sex. The biological purpose of sex is objectively to make babies - there is no way to wiggle out of this truth.  That is the function it was derived for.

 

I will invite you to read through this again and really try to take in its context (the biological purpose for sex - not any purpose that someone else finds as utility).  You seem to be attacking a claim I specifically didn't make (some might say a strawman).  I specifically was making the biological purpose claim.

 

 

We are also talking about pursuing recreational sex, which is not why our biological programming even exists.  You could even say that nature is combating the rise in recreational sex through the near epidemic levels of STDs now present.  Our biological programming exists to keep the species going, not have really great and frequent orgasms and feel like a Masculine King because you can stick your dick inside a lot of women. I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego. Maybe it is just me, but I don't prefer lots of recreational sex because I know that is not the purpose of sex (however, I also experienced some of the consequences of this recreational sex mentality in my early 20s).

[MMX2010]

 

There are plenty of PUA tactics that more or less fall under this category and I would call manipulative and hence not very virtuous, but I would not call them immoral, something like renting a nice car to arrive at a club to give the impression you're wealthier than you really are. That's manipulative but it's not an explicit lie, it works on the basis that the average person will assume its your car and that assumption is erroneous. However just like with the female example, if someone asks and you explicitly lie to cover yourself then this is back in to the fraudulent territory and immoral.

 

I also think mentality is very telling, there is a clear difference between someone generally being honest in all their interactions, and someone who is constantly looking to manipulate to gain an edge. If I was on the receiving end of manipulation, whether or not it was considered immoral wouldn't really matter to me, just the mentality of that person to manipulate would be off putting enough.

 

Okay, so how about this?

 

John has been a highly depressed individual for many years, and he determines that being highly depressed isn't sexually attractive.  Through the work of some self-help books and podcasts, he (hopefully!) has acquired a small amount of insight into his childhood wounds and (he hopes!) has gotten rid of the depression.  I say, "he hopes" because he doesn't know how much he really understands nor how much he's gotten rid of the depression, because he's been depressed for years and has achieved "understanding" for two days.

 

He spots this beautiful woman, hits on her under the frame of his new-found "awareness", and she falls in love with him.  Fraud, or not Fraud? 

That is called modifying consequences, not purpose.  Wearing a bullet proof vest does not change the purpose of a gun, it modifies the consequences of getting hit with a bullet.

 

 

WastachMan, hundreds of women every day actively know that sex could be used for having babies, display their active knowledge by deliberately taking birth control, and then have sex anyway - but you're saying, "Sex is still for having babies, even though women, through their intelligent choices, have made sex NOT FOR having babies".

 

Your argument is made in defiance of the facts, WastachMan, not in alignment with those facts. 

 

How do women feel when you make this argument to them, assuming you've made that argument to them at all? 

 

 

 

Your whole thing was to shame me (Quote: "And if you don't know that [purpose of sex], but act like you know that, then what kind of person does that make you?") for assuming to know the purpose of sex. The biological purpose of sex is objectively to make babies - there is no way to wiggle out of this truth.  That is the function it was derived for.

 

I will invite you to read through this again and really try to take in its context (the biological purpose for sex - not any purpose that someone else finds as utility).  You seem to be attacking a claim I specifically didn't make (some might say a strawman).  I specifically was making the biological purpose claim.

 

Right, I get it.  If we could time-travel back to before birth-control was invented and various surgical options existed, then you could make the obvious claim that, biologically, sex is for making babies.  But there are no time-travel devices, no ruby red slippers, and no cars that run on male frustration that travel fast enough to break the speed of light....to find a wormhole....to end up in 1857.  I look out the window, and it's still 2015. 

 

And it's not called "shaming you", WastachMan - (as if your emotional happiness were, or ought to be, the central focus of this thread).  It's called "acknowledging the facts" and "having empathy for women". 

[WasatchMan]

WastachMan, hundreds of women every day actively know that sex could be used for having babies, display their active knowledge by deliberately taking birth control, and then have sex anyway - but you're saying, "Sex is still for having babies, even though women, through their intelligent choices, have made sex NOT FOR having babies".

 

Context, man, context.  You are fighting an argument I am not making. 

[MMX2010]

Context, man, context.  You are fighting an argument I am not making. 

 

If I'm fighting an argument you're not making, then you're not communicating your argument very well. 

 

When you say, "The purpose of having sex is making babies!", is that a universal, objectively true statement or a subjective, emotionally true-for-only-you statement?