"swallowing" ​b​lackpill, overcoming it; moving forward; pseudoscience and woo-woo stuff

[7Wannabe5]

This might be a bit of a generational thing, but it’s not like there weren’t casual players in the past. The difference I sense with this movement is the underlying anger/hurt. Like in 1979 if a guy was objectifying you sexually there was something sensual and basically good natured about it. Like you were like a bag of good weed or an ice cream cone. None of this scary fear/resentment vibe. From the female perspective an undercurrent of anything like that gives you the same sort of feeling you might get when encountering an anxious animal that might be dangerous.

[Egg]

The feeling I got from a lot of those PUA guys is: "ok, yeah, a weirdo/sociopath/narcissist like that guy, you may need/want to use some tricks and deception in order to get laid".

PUA tactics are successful the way the nigerian prince scammers are successful. sane and well adjusted women smell them a mile off.

For the men interested in the topic of this thread, please be a decent human being when relating to others.

Like in 1979 if a guy was objectifying you sexually there was something sensual and basically good natured about it. Like you were like a bag of good weed or an ice cream cone. None of this scary fear/resentment vibe.

Some truth in all of this, but I sense there's also an element of straw man to it. "PUA" as a term has a lot of baggage due to its association with feather boas, fantasists, snake oil salesmen and downright mysogynists. If it's seen purely on those terms, I agree that's all bullshit.

What's also bullshit, though, is to say that simply because someone isn't a "natural" with women, there's something dirty or morally reprehensible about a conscious and structured effort to become more attractive (let's take this as my working definition of "PUA"). I liked 7W5's "honest player" vs PUA distinction - but I'd suggest that the main reason PUAs all seem to suck (and/or seem like resentful, virginal losers) is that their suckiness is what unmasks them as (bad) PUAs. Someone with good, learnt game ought to be indistinguishable from "naturals" and is not really trying to 'trick' anyone - they have just become more socially adept over time (and have likely also improved their style and physique).

Anyway, I'm not really trying to convert anyone. People will believe what they want and the OP can take or leave my suggestion. But I think the disagreement is largely one of semantics and if you reframed what I'm trying to say in less emotive language of "self improvement" rather than branding it as "PUA", the substance would suddenly be much more palatable to a wider group of people.

[ertyu]

structured effort to become more attractive (let's take this as my working definition of "PUA").

we don't disagree, then, we just work off of different definitions. i am not sure this is the definition i'd choose, at least based on what i saw when I dipped my toes on those websites. Other people's experience might differ.

[ertyu]

This might be a bit of a generational thing, but it’s not like there weren’t casual players in the past. The difference I sense with this movement is the underlying anger/hurt. Like in 1979 if a guy was objectifying you sexually there was something sensual and basically good natured about it. Like you were like a bag of good weed or an ice cream cone. None of this scary fear/resentment vibe. From the female perspective an undercurrent of anything like that gives you the same sort of feeling you might get when encountering an anxious animal that might be dangerous.

I am closer to 40 so my conscious experience starts about a decade - decade point five later, but i had noticed the same and spent some time trying to find the language for it. the word i came up with was "radicalized." Finding a willing and decent partner for mating has always been one of the chief concerns of young humans (of whatever gender) and i am sure a couple of decades ago young men were just as bumbly and nervous when they first tried to get with a girl. but they were not as hateful - as radicalized - as i seem to observe them to be these days (attach requisite disclaimers to this last sentence). And because they were less radicalized (and didn't give off fear and resentment), they were more successful. when i was a teen, we used to hang out in the park with booze someone procured from somewhere. we were all awkward, girls and boys alike, and somehow we ended up making out. hell, sometimes girls and girls and boys and boys ended up making out, and this is buttfuck nowhere eastern europe, not the most tolerant place on earth. it's an interesting thing - eastern europe has more sexism than the US, but it is way less radicalized.

[Egg]

i am not sure this is the definition i'd choose, at least based on what i saw when I dipped my toes on those websites. Other people's experience might differ.

Yeah, I get that. I'm not even saying that my definition of "PUA" is representative. I'd hesitate to make unambiguously "pro PUA" statements in future for exactly that reason. Too loaded a term.

[7Wannabe5]

@Egg:

I agree that the process can be more like self-improvement. I went through a similar phase when I landed back on the dating market at 42 after 20 years of marriage. However, there are many books, mentors, websites that take a less radical approach then black pill/PUA types. I mean how can heterosexual men dislike women so much without on some level loathing their own sexuality?

@ertyu:

I agree, but would also note for the sake of honest discussion that their are some individuals who never go through a bumbling phase. I was pretty darn bumbling myself being horny nerd girl who had probably read 200 sexually explicit novels and manuals before actually making out with a boy, but my first few partners would be best described as physically graceful burnout types, kind of guy who might gun his mini bike across a baseball field while simultaneously smoking a cigarette and catching the ball. It has been my experience, reconfirmed even in late middle age, that those kind of guys are just naturally good in bed.

[Egg]

@Egg:
I mean how can heterosexual men dislike women so much without on some level loathing their own sexuality?

Assume this is a rhetorical question but, to be clear, I am not trying to excuse the genuine mysogyny in the PUA movement, of which there is plenty. On the other hand, mixing loathing and sexuality isn't only a man's game ...:

Not God but a swastika
So black no sky could squeak through.
Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.

[7Wannabe5]

@Egg:

True enough, but Sylvia Plath was stone depressive who committed suicide at 31. S&M can offer benefits similar to electroshock therapy.

If it is the case that the PUA movement is full of very depressive men looking for Femme Dom to snap them out of it then that is indicative of a serious market dilemma, because attractive Femme Dons are pretty much the least available of all sexual types.

[Jin+Guice]

My understanding is that PUA is the sales manual of sex for straight dudes who are not naturally good at sales (presumably the naturally good do the same thing without having to learn/ think about it?). For some reason this is coupled with extreme misogyny and a lack of emotional depth (basically Kegan* 2).

*Not 100% sure I fully grasp the Kegan levels yet.

There's something gross to me about salesmen, probably because I'm a nerd. Sales is just understanding human psychology and manipulating it to your advantage. "Manipulating" sounds bad, but human psychology is infinitely fallabale so it is always being influenced for or against your goals. In practical terms, you are learning the verbal and non-verbal communication skills that put someone at ease and influence them to do what you want. I don't think there's anything wrong with learning good sales or marketing. A great business that could help tons of people still usually needs competent sales people to succeed.

If you only learn PUA shit and don't improve yourself you're a used car salesmen. You make the person feel like they're getting something really great, but after a few days they'll realize that it's actually a piece of shit. "Success" is defined as getting laid, but it seems like most of the PUA authors end up going celibate or getting married. IIRC the guy who wrote "The Game" also wrote a book about how he couldn't maintain romantic relationships. Being great at seduction is great, just don't forget it's not the only romance skill you'll need.

*I think the guys who are truly great at being players are much better at signaling what they actually are. Like you knew the cadillac didn't get great gas mileage, so you didn't buy it, but you always rent it for vacation.

Learning how to present yourself in a more appealing way is a fine goal for anyone, just make sure you're actually endorsing something worthwhile. PUA is also just sales techniques and social skills, so you can skip the misogyny by reading sales and social improvement books, but the examples won't be as direct.

The misogyny is totally unnecessary. It's a shame because I'm not aware of any other dudes who were not naturally good at picking up women who learned to become better at it and then wrote books about that. It's fucked that the only way to convince dudes who are bad with women to change themselves and look beyond their comfort zone was to first tell them that women were terrible. You should ignore the misogyny because it's shitty to be a misogynist. It is also holding you back. When you have a problem, blaming someone else/ some group of people and expecting them to change will never work.

[7Wannabe5]

I liked the book Tariq Nasheed wrote for women. “Art of Mackin’” was one of his books for men. He did make use of phraseology such as “Don’t get me wrong, pussy is gold.” , but I didn’t find him to be misogynistic. He’s more of the “ Find your purpose and women will naturally find you attractive school. As he put it, until you find your purpose, you will be “ just pimping” anyways. General rule of thumb is that in any realm of life if/ when you are primarily engaged in “counting coup” , you are “ just pimping.”

[C40]

I'm pretty sure I used to listen to what were essentially podcasts from that Tariq Nasheed guy. Back in 2007 or so. He had a captivating way of speaking. It was very slow and extremely deliberate.

[MidsizeLebowski]

The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene comes to mind as a "PUA" book without the misogyny.

[Jean]

PUA methods turn people into misogynists, becauses pua methods mostly worked on woman that are likely to turn you into a misogynist.
People you attract mostly mirror you what you attracted them with.

[steveo73]

Does PUA work ? I honestly have no interest in it but I think it's pseudoscience.

[ertyu]

Does PUA work ? I honestly have no interest in it but I think it's pseudoscience.

Does it work in what sense? Does it work in the sense of making men overcome the sex and relationship baggage that keeps them unhappy? No. Does it work to part them with their money? Yes.

@ML have not read Greene book, will give it a try.

@7w5, your descriptions always make me laugh. I'll give you the motorbike types, my own experiences were all of the bumble-bumble variety haha

[C40]

@Seveo73 - In the sense that it can help men have sex, yes, it absolutely helps.

Now... how effectiveness it is is debatable. At the very least, (and possibly this is true for a large portion of the men following PUA advice) - it 'works' by helping men actually initiate something with women, and helping them come up with some words to say, and to do these things with a little more confidence than they had before. If this helps a guy change from talking to 0-1 women at the bars on a Saturday night to 10+, his chances of having something happen go up a lot.

I'm sure it also helps a lot of men to start making progress towards having healthy relationships as well. Not all guys who are reading PUA stuff are going to transform into monsters... for a lot of them, they just need something to help them start talking with and relating to women. Even if they start off in a strange way, at least it's a start.

[steveo73]

@ertyu - my impression is that it is really based on screwing people out of their money.
@C40 - I think there could be a placebo effect so that men actually make an effort and there you go.

[Stahlmann]

Hmm.

What's kegan5 (or k4, because on k5 sex would be only concept in our heads conveying different societal norms in different situations; "embracing the paradox"?), "adult to adult", ''I'm OK, you're OK" way to say/create aura (yea, sure on this level this is important)

"We can casually hook up, but this could more serious consequences for you than me. I want to be an adult's decision (pls don't be crazy). Yea, for sure, you could me consider some kind Casanova, but in reality I'm interested in fullfiling my and your needs and prolly I won't be so smart in sheets. I can provide testing and logistics. I'm not interested in prostitution (in any form) nor pornography as I think women there are somehow coerced/will regret their choices. I like winning games where odds somehow in my favour."

Btw, I'm not interested in the solution where it's my gender attributed role (is it like you assumed one?) to be responsible for everything and being easily manipualted in some games to play (how about being adult and being able to try to understood your actions in outside world?) which could be avoided (for example, I need non-PUA explanation for "negging". I don't find it funny being constaly poked. How about talking about anything i more constructive way?)

"(...) there are old-world variants of games that people play with each other to get entangled in something that seems comfortable and profitable to them. Thinking that patriarchy is a model created by men to oppress women, not is true, because both sides can manipulate to achieve their goals. Male dominance has been said a lot. Less - about games run by women. And yet one of the most common strategies for entering such a traditional relationship, based on the system that he earns and she brings up children, there is a strategy for a blonde. A method of self depreciation. "I will show you that I am helpless, helpless, and I will really manipulate you so that you take on all responsibility ..." Of course, the same also goes the other way, but less often and the background is more complex. "

"For a couple who creates a relationship from a really partner position, the traditional division of duties model can be very convenient, because it releases a woman from struggle, fight. It brings peace. From my therapeutic practice I know that a lot of women want this from life and from a relationship The youngest women have already opted for the mothers' choices. Almost half want a traditionally constructed family, not a husband with their children, because they watched the struggling mothers. "

"(...) I observe that today among my patients there are also those disappointed in the partner model - because the man in the role of a housekeeper ceases to be an object of interest to them in a sexual sense."

https://forum.gazeta.pl/forum/w,12359,1 ... ?pelna=tak

Sure, I can distinguish sane and not sane people (this why I don't to clubs and stay up to the end of parties and "pick up" ladies in RooshV "style"). I'm leaving "not sane" people alone and even try help them, but it's more that they even don't know that they're "not sane" :-DDD

Average person doesn't know this concepts (from second line) and assume I'm "introverted" bc I don't talk all the time and can't express emotions due to X factor (with current health system in my country I prefer to stay "undiagnosed") :-DDDDD


Clown world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piehf4vTpB8

edit:
1. Ok, paragraph 3 could be more "stoic".
2. I won't like answers in the line: "if you haven't made it through, you're prolly k2 and in rage again". But I see this could be case as for my lack ability to express what I do IRL vs how I'm being perceived vs what I feel vs what I know vs what I communicate on this forum now vs what I communicate on this forum in my worse states.
3. Sure, somebody could say that I play in the "Game of being pseudo intelectual egoistic prick who don't wanna change himself", but I tend to disagree.
4. Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loevinger ... rated_(E9)

"Need to evaluate things and persons is abandoned. Merging with the world, no more holding, but engaging in the flow of things. Playful alternation between seriousness and triviality, intermingling of different states of consciousness, thinking in time cycles and historical dimensions, full acceptance of differences and people as they are."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%2 ... and_above)

Wisdom: ego integrity vs. despair
Existential Question: Is it Okay to Have Been Me?
As we grow older and become senior citizens we tend to slow down our productivity and explore life as a retired person. It is during this time that we contemplate our accomplishments and are able to develop integrity if we see ourselves as leading a successful life. If we see our life as unproductive, or feel that we did not accomplish our life goals, we become dissatisfied with life and develop despair, often leading to depression and hopelessness.

5. Ok, time for a walk.
6. And some good boom boom boom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptEtGHA8Ujs
7. Haven't gone for a walk. Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_disorder
Not fun.
8. Finally, went for a walk.

[7Wannabe5]

because on k5 sex would be only concept in our heads conveying different societal norms in different situations; "embracing the paradox"?)

In practice, what can happen is that you become capable of summoning up partner's desired complement in the moment like a hologram. Kind of of like sexual empathy reveals a mold, and sexual creativity/skills uses the mold to cast an image. I call it Scheherazading. However, entirely possible this is just indicative of high level 4, not 5.

Btw, I'm not interested in the solution where it's my gender attributed role (is it like you assumed one?) to be responsible for everything and being easily manipualted in some games to play (how about being adult and being able to try to understood your actions in outside world?) which could be avoided (for example, I need non-PUA explanation for "negging". I don't find it funny being constaly poked. How about talking about anything i more constructive way?)

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for here, but I'll make a couple suggestions. First off, to the extent that you wish to incorporate sexual dichotomy theory or practice, it is very important to get a grip on the difference between "responsibility" and "authority." Generally, when an individual fears or dislikes the idea of taking on "responsibility", this is indicative of either a rational or irrational take on the limitation of their ability to manifest "authority." How you can see this is true is by observing that a villain has no problem with exerting authority in a situation in which he has no intention of taking responsibility. Oftentimes, a "nice guy" is so semi-consciously concerned with preserving self-image of "not a villain", he will take on too much responsibility relative to the authority (clear decision-making/enforcing ability) he has in a situation. So, for instance, a man who is in clear possession of his authority relative to responsibility would be capable of freely making/enforcing either a contract where his wife is the stay-at-home partner or he is the stay-at-home partner or neither/both. The role doesn't make the man. The man makes the role.

The reason why "negging" can work briefly at a certain level is that you are at least demonstrating that you are not going to burden an attractive woman with taking responsibility for your infatuation. IOW, you aren't de facto assigning her the role of designated not-so-infatuated driver. One big problem in dealing with infatuated others is that they are usually projecting their own internal ideal upon you, and therefore not seeing the reality of you. IOW, the man who is imagining that you are his "dream girl finally found!" is actually interacting with you on a less intimate, reality based level than the guy who simply sees you as a human carrier of a great rack.

OTOH, "negging" is a well known play which will be disregarded by most females who have been around the block more than twice. I forget if it has a name, but much better play is offering a unique compliment or observation.

[Stahlmann]

Argh, I failed conveying information one more time.
Sure, normally "negging" is proposed as technique to use in convos as man with conversations with women (as in some xkcd comic).

I mean that average lady tries "shit test me" by asking "a bit stupid" (at least for me) questions.
I don't wanna answer with scripts from PUA-world.
For me as INTP (or even somebody on autism spectrum) "everything is serious and set of observable patterns which lead to bettering my ultimate theory of everything".
Ansewering seriously eads to "uncool" dude label and it closes my even more in the basement.

It would be interesting if @daylen chimed in before anybody else decided to write one page of A4 text.