AlienVessels, you really are starting to look like an idiot in this thread.
I know, right? I mean, it’s not something I’d personally want in my life, but I got no problem with him. I’m not sure quite why you would (although the time and place for Rohypnol jokes is IMHO not really at meat market bars) - the guy seems perfectly nice, and I bet going out for drinks with him is a fun time. He’s certainly up front in his relationships, which is more than I can say for a lot of people. Now, there are some other people here who have damaging and unhealthy attitudes towards the opposite sex, but he isn’t one of them.
Competition is not always a chimp fight. When did I ever even IMPLY that it was. It is usually far more subtle than that. What drives you to interpret a “chimp fight” into what I said?
Could you be more specific?
That’s not what he said, he said he did not take advantage of really drunk women. Unless you are one of those house mothers that think women can’t ever consent to sex after drinking anything (in which case you are disconnected from reality)…?
Do you think women ever drink for the very reason that it lowers their inhibitions? They do, and so do men.
As for the firm “no” let me ask you this, do you think women ever put up token resistance to sexual advances to a) gives themselves a plausible deniability defense either for their own sexual guilt or accusations of sluttiness, or b) to provide an opportunity for the man to show her that she is nearly irresistible, to demonstrate to herself her own sexual attractiveness and her partners beasty vigor, to get a more primal and enjoyable experience? Because I can tell you that they do. Or as my ex put it sometimes no means no but more often it means “what do you got, how bad do you want it? please keep trying”.
But then there is the “firm” no. The difference I am talking about is as follows, a guy is making out with a girl on his couch, he tries to give her breasts a fondling, she murmurs a faint no and pushes his hand away and continues to make out with him, a few minutes later he tries again and she lets him this time, moaning a little. He then goes down for the coochie stroke and she pushes his had away and keeps kissing him, a few minutes later he tries again and her resistance melts away and she gives herself to him and they do it. That is token resistance. A firm no is something else entirely.
Date rape is certainly a very serious problem which I do not mean to minimize at all by this, I just mean to separate it from consensual sexual experiences other than ones where sex is explicitly agreed to.
The issue isn’t any specific phrase or word usage he’s made. Certain I point out examples. But the issue is the pattern. You can find them in just about every extensive post he’s made.
I realize there is all sorts of human variation and of course there are players.
I draw the line at letting them both tout their system of techniques and claim that people really like it that way.
A reasonable person would simply say “I don’t play drunk chicks” and “I stop when she says no”. Instead, he qualified with “really drunk” and “firm no”. Again, this is just one example over the course these posts.
Here is how you’re starting to sound like an idiot. Not that I’m a huge fan of PUA, but you have so clearly made your mind up that he’s a bad guy that you’re really grasping at straws with this crap. Maybe–just maybe–since he’s interested in and spends time thinking about social and sexual interactions, he was just speaking more precisely here?
After all, you admitted that what he said is accurate here – you just don’t think a morally good person would say it like that. Or, as you put it, “a reasonable person would simply say…”
Almost all your contributions in this thread are like this. Find something he says, concoct a bizzare spin on how that particular phrasing shows him to be a bad person. Don’t listen to reason.
pdts
So your problem is not the existence of players but their sharing of techniques and their claim that women like players? Women do like players, in fact a huge part of the definition of player is someone who exhibits the characteristics that attract women. And what in the world is wrong with him sharing his techniques? Do you have the same objections to the existence of college marketing classes?
Forget the individual points. Go back and look at the overall pattern.
And whose reason should I be listening to? His? It’s entirely circular.
If you have specific points to make, I’m happy to listen.
But at this point it feels like I’m heckling a snake oil salesman and people are complaining that he should be left alone to sell the wonders of his placebo. Buyer beware, right? Except that people in general aren’t trained to be aware of this kind of thing. Dianetics works too. That’s how they sell it. You mix in quite a bit of truth to get the medicine to go down.
And what in the world is wrong with me criticizing what he’s presenting? After all, we’re all here to share perspectives, no?
Most professional schools I’m aware of spend time on the ethics of their profession. Do I have reservations about how marketing techniques can manipulate people? Of course.
Perhaps my perspective is jaundiced because my education in psychology at the undergraduate and graduate level made sure that students were keenly aware of issues with using psychological manipulation on other human beings.
Just as an example, I was meeting with my major professor and the other grad students about our research on measuring eye movements while reading text on a display. Someone asked for example of applied use of information we might gather in this research. I thought about it for a minute and then offered that if we learned about where people looked when they read text, then it might be possible to “plant” text where people were likely to spend less time reading it, said text being something you didn’t want to them to pay much attention to. I’ll always remember the looks of horror that I could think up something like that, even though it’s obvious.
It’s too easy to use techniques developed by an organization to operate in peoples’ “blind spots”.
AlienVessels, I don’t think the guy is claiming to be some sort of Svengali. 
Who is it supposed to be a placebo for, the women he picks up or men who may attempt to copy him? Because when women meet someone and have sex with them it is usually something that they have been wanting to happen, and have been waiting for the right person to come along, especially in their dark and quiet tingly moments. He has just learned how to become the right person. And as far as what he is giving as advice to lonely men the basics of it is at least made up of stuff that, frankly, one has to be pretty naive to disagree with.
Or, you could NOT plant the text altogether if you don’t want them to pay attention to it.
Ok well I can see a bit of a point here that I can not dismiss. This distinction between a person learning techniques themselves, or from their friends and family, or from an organization, is meaningful. Though I do think that your position still seems to rely on interpreting the seduction of a woman as likely to be harmful to her, where I think that more often if a woman allows herself to be seduced it is an overall positive thing or she wouldn’t let it happen, you know life force and all. I think it is much less likely to be harmful than when a corporation or non profit or organized religion uses techniques they have developed to get a person to consume their product, donate to their cause, or join their religion.
Come to think of it shouldn’t therapists and psychiatrists be on the top of the list? They charge their clients money to manipulate them in ways that they claim is for the clients own good.
My objection is not specific to women. He makes it very clear that these techniques work everywhere and he uses them on both genders. You’d have to. If you’re doing the PUA thing you’re going to come up against people already committed and you’d need countermeasures to deal with that.
Reread his posts. It ain’t a religion, but it smacks of cult.
Sure. I’d have no objection if the PUA had to go through advanced college degrees and be licensed practitioners subject to professional review boards.
Is that what you’re suggesting?
No, in fact I would consider the college degrees and professional orgs to be part of the manipulation.
I was just going to say, this movement needs to get members to overthink things more.