ISTM that there are two possible aspects of the PUA movement, which might be termed “tactical” and “strategic”. IOW, they are trying to attract women (tactical) and they are trying to attract them with some end in mind (strategic). There seems to be some disagreement in this thread as to whether PUA is exclusively dedicated to trying to attract women purely for sex or whether people looking for genuine relationships also use these same methodologies. As above, I don’t know anything about the PUA movement or its membership, so I have no position on the latter question, and for this reason have said nothing whatsoever that amounts to a position on that question. I was specifically addressing the question of whether the “women tend to like X, so be more like X so that more women will like you” is a good idea or gaming the system.
I see whether your ultimate end as being mucho sexo or a genuine relationship as being a separate question. There are undoubtedly people out there who are looking for meaningful relationships and having a hard time of it - whether or not these people are members of the PUA movement - and many of these people might benefit from a more accurate assessment of what potential mates tend to like and working in that direction.
You don’t need to bother taking me at my word. You can assume whatever you want about my ulterior motives. But just address what I’m saying. I’ve not said anything in defense of the PUA movement here. Even if you do think what I’ve said is intended to ultimately support the PUA movement, it seems to be eminently possible to just address what I actually say rather than your presumptions about my intentions.
The reference to “gaming” that you responded to was a reference to being a pickup artist, so if you’re talking about something else probably nobody disagrees with you, as no one has yet advanced the proposition that learning what might be attractive to the opposite sex and trying to move in that direction is per se objectionable.
I disagree about the reference to gaming, and the notion that learning etc. is objectionable was implied. The fuller quote was:
I disagree that “try[ing] to the best person they can be and hop[ing] for the best” is “the only thing one can do”, and think for many people “[a]nalyzing the opposite sex and their habits in the attempt to learn about and “game” an adversarial system” is a good idea.
As long as it’s along the lines of improving oneself rather that appearing to be what one isn’t. I was always afraid of being “phoney”, and was certainly overly judgemental of guys I felt were attracting women that way (especially of those who openly admitted that was what they were doing).
I meant ‘‘I’ll take you at your word’’ in the absolute most charitable way you can interpret it, though I worried you might take it less charitably than intended. What I originally wrote is that though we may not always agree, you have never struck me as anything other than reasonable. I redacted that because too many people confuse my honesty with flattery (or more to the point, some ulterior motive beyond mutual understanding.) Rest assured what I meant to convey is that I misunderstood your position as a defense of the PUA movement until your post clarified it.
I haven’t seen it argued here that there is anything wrong per se with trying to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex, generally. I think what we are really discussing is a matter of degree. Having good personal hygiene, getting regular exercise, being gainfully employed etc. are all examples of things most people look for in a potential mate. I see nothing inherently wrong with that nor with the idea of say, bathing more often in hopes it will get you more ass (or affection, or whatever you’re seeking from the potential mate… I honestly don’t make a moral distinction as long as things are honest and fair.)
But the keywords here, for me, are honest and fair. In this thread we’ve been discussing less honesty and fairness and more manipulation, both in the context of PUAs and just being manipulative in general. I do think there is something wrong with intentionally exploiting someone’s (perceived or actual) weakness in order to get something you want from them that they might not otherwise be comfortable in giving up. I think that’s a shitty thing to do.
The real question is where we draw that line. How far is too far, and where does trying to make yourself more appealing become ‘‘gaming the system’’? From where I sit that’s wide open for interpretation.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as having taken offense. It’s just that in general I feel that addressing what you’ve speculated to be other people’s motives is counterproductive and it’s better to just address what people have actually said. Peace.
As I see it, the key issue as regards to the “nice guy” matter is whether there are in fact things that many people - in this case women, though this could also apply to men on other matters - maintain as being attractive to them, perhaps because this is how they consciously feel, but which don’t fully capture the depths of their feelings. And that someone who follows what women “officially” want can lose out because that doesn’t capture quite precisely what they really want. This would lead to a lot of bitterness among the ones who are losing out.
In that context, someone said, essentially “just be yourself and let it come to you”, and implied that anything more than that was gaming the system, so I took issue with that.
I agree that fakery is wrong, as I’ve indicated earlier. Also, that it’s a fine line.
If a woman wears make-up, or body-sculpting clothing etc., is she less than honest and being manipulative? If she pretends to have more interest in the guy’s babbling about sports than she actually has, is she being dishonest? There’s a certain amount of best-foot-forward that is par for the course.
And sometimes fakery is “real”. Suppose a guy is nervous around women and women find this off-putting. And instead of being his nervous natural self, he decides to work on social skills and makes himself into a more suave persona, and does his best to pull this off on dates. I don’t think that’s faking. Women who might have been put off by his manner are not being put off, and are now enjoying themselves on dates with him. That’s real.
Or how about this? I’ve seen many sources advise women to not make themselves “too available” to guys who are interested in them. They claim guys want to “win” a “prize” and if they see the woman as being too available then they will lose interest. Leaving aside whether this is good advise as a practical matter, is it dishonest to say you’re busy such-and-such night, or to deliberately fail to respond to messages and the like, in the attempt to create an aura of unavailability?
You see, this right here is exhibit A for how this board can jump wildly to conclusions and be onerously judgmental.
Nowhere did I say - or even intimate - that “women owe men sex.” Nowhere did I say anything even remotely resembling “misogyny, objectification, hypocrisy, blame shifting, and other unpleasant stuff.”
Yes, I talked about being a bit envious towards my buddy’s ‘sex number,’ but that isn’t assholish in any way; that’s just me being a young man and admitting admiration towards something that most young men would find admirable.
And to the other poster who claimed that I should show remorse for having drunkenly made out with two women: Why the HELL would I do that? I didn’t do anything wrong for crying out loud. You guys also know nothing of the dynamics that preceded each of those make-out sessions: one was a game of truth-or-dare, in which the woman asked my buddy to dare her to make out with me; the other was the result of late-night clubbing shenanigans. The fact that I’m not interested in those women outside of the events in question is not a backhanded slight against those women; it’s just, y’know, a statement of fact that I am not interested in them in any romantic way.
I suspect the advice of the Pick-Up Artist would be the same in that situation as advice from someone else - if you can’t close the deal, move on.
The PUA says “I just want to get laid, I am not going to get laid in this situation, so the heck with it.” Maybe that is superficial or gaming the system or whatever. But someone with a common amount of experience or self-respect says 'I just want a romantic relationship, I am not going to get anywhere in this situation, so the heck with it". The end goal is different but the reaction is the same.
A Nice Guy (in the sense being discussed) puts up with it.
Maybe it is being a jerk to say “I am not interested in being your understanding friend unless there is a chance I can get into your pants”, but it saves time.
I didn’t know I was being used until after it was over. I always suspected some girls saw me as “damaged goods” after that, and they wouldn’t have been totally off base.
BTW, just to add another angle to the discussion, my own personal observation over life has been that - completely independent of dating and male-female romantic interaction - jerks tend to have more to offer on a personal level than non-jerks, and this tends to compensate for their jerkiness in a variety of settings.
If you took a survey of how many friends people had and then compared the results for jerks versus non-jerks, I believe that jerks have, on average, as many or more friends than non-jerks.
I suspect that people who have less to offer personality-wise are less likely to develop into jerks, because they’re more likely to see being a nice guy as being their ticket to success in society, while jerks are relying on other aspects and less motivated to develop into nice guys.
Again, this is a general comment about society, but I imagine this may also come into play as regards to dating and relationships.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by gaming an adversial system.
It doesn’t mean simply making yourself attractive to the opposite sex, because this is a process that actually doesn’t require any adversaries. It means assuming that women need to somehow be tricked, lured, or manipulated to acquire their interest. It means that, unless you put on an act based on a set of cynical, distrustful set of assumptions about how attraction works, you won’t succeed romantically. It also means assigning the most mercenary of motivations to female’s preferences to explain why certain men aren’t as romantically successful as others.
For example, rather than considering whether there’s a valid reason someone might find it difficult to be aroused by a man who lacks initiative, is a poor conversationalist, or has little interests outside of video games, a fellow who believes dating is all about fighting an adversial system will be inclined to thinks guys like him simply can’t compete because “women only like jerks” or " women are biologically driven to go where the money is" or “historically, coercion was the only way to get most women to settle down with most men”. In other words, to spare his ego and deflect responsibility for his own social problems, he assigns fault to the system. In doing so, he makes it even more difficult for himself to connect with women.
I can’t see this being anything but unhealthy. Do you see what I mean now?
I hope I didn’t come across as criticizing you, that wasn’t my intent.
As mentioned, my dating experience is lost in the mists of history, but it would be fair to describe me as “floundering in the depths of clueless bewilderment” when I was 15 as well. But another of the pieces of advice given by PUAs is useful - develop a thick hide and dump her once you have determined that you aren’t going to get what you want. Sometimes that means she will think you are a jerk. Too bad.
Simply talking endlessly about feelings with no chance of sex is why women need gay friends.
Yes it’s dishonest. Unethically so? I don’t know. It’s more dishonest than I’m comfortable with personally but I’m a cards on the table kind of person. I fully acknowledge that’s bitten me on the ass more than once because some guys do really seem to find it off-putting when women are straightforward about what they want. With my husband, I was the first one to make a move, and it was essentially an e-mail telling him I was falling in love with him. I remember my Aunt (sort of my single person role model at the time) damn near had an aneurism - ''Never tell a man that you love him first! You’ll scare the shit out of him!"
''Why not? I do love him. Why waste time?" I’ve never been interested in dicking around with people who aren’t interested in me, as I tend to put large amounts of emotional investment into my romantic interests. I’m not going to suffer over someone who doesn’t want me. Better to grieve the loss and move on.
Anyway it worked in my favor, he really was just too shy to make his feelings known until I made it safe for him. And really I was the one who was scared shitless but sometimes the stakes are so high you have to take a gamble anyhow.
So again, I acknowledge my brain doesn’t work the same as most people’s when it comes to this stuff. It seems to have worked in my favor but it probably depends a lot on what you’re looking for. I have zero problem with non-monogamy or sexual adventurousness as a lifestyle choice but it’s never been a lifestyle that I desired personally. I have a brain hard-wired for commitment and that’s the guy I ended up with too. I fell in love with, and married, my best friend. It was the friendship that facilitated the attraction, I knew him for a full year before I even began to think about him in that way. He wasn’t trying to do the Nice Guy schtick but he nonetheless proved that sometimes, it works.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Maybe it is being a jerk to say “I am not interested in being your understanding friend unless there is a chance I can get into your pants”, but it saves time.
[/QUOTE]
I actually think it’s not jerkish at all to be so forthright. I think what’s arguably jerkish is pretending otherwise in the hopes that your ‘nice guy’ points will get you laid. Being disingenuous about your motives – that is the real asshole move.
This is actually reminding me of a guy friend I had while I was going through all this conflict over Sr. Weasel. In retrospect, this dude was clearly into me, but he couldn’t pull the trigger. Instead he managed by listening to me kvetch about this other guy, and ultimately encouraged me to tell Sr. Weasel how I felt. He was absolutely the prototypical ‘‘nice guy.’’ Do I think he was an asshole? No, I suspect he really didn’t know how else to manage his feelings. But I’d be lying to say it’s not kind of sad. And it’s worth noting he definitely did not get what he wanted out of that relationship.
The two things can get mixed, though. A woman who thinks men only like thin women may embark on a program to lose 30 pounds. She may do so bitterly, cynically and negatively, but it might work or it might not. She might then attract men even if her weight was never the real issue.
Yeah…the problem with your aunt’s advice is that plenty of men’s advice books say something similar, ‘’*Never tell a woman that you love her first! You’ll scare the shit out of her!" *
By this logic people would NEVER say “I love you,” ever.
I like the way you tackled the issue.
I think men and women are wired, to a certain extent, to focus on the opposite gender’s negative motives: Women are convinced that men are attracted to a shapely figure and a pretty face, and men are convinced that women are attracted to wealth, height, jerk qualities and confidence/arrogance.
It surprises me to hear that. The stereotype I am most familiar with is women want commitment/men want to get laid so I would have thought common advice for men would be more along the lines of overstating their feelings. Shows how much I know.
I don’t think we’re “wired” to do that as a rule. Feeling frequently rejected tends to bring out rationalizations and negativity, but if that’s not your particular struggle, you won’t be inclined to fall back on thoughts like this.
My problem with dating was not finding men who were interested in me. It was finding men who interested me. So I spent little time thinking about their motives. The idea that men are attracted to pretty women has really never bothered me.
