For the record, I’ve come to the realization that I’m neither a nice guy nor a ‘nice guy,’ nor do I want to be either. I thought I made that clear in the last few pages of that trainwreck thread. Thanks for the gratuitous insult though. If you’re going to take a dig at me, perhaps you could be bothered to at least explain the reasoning behind your thinking. :rolleyes: indeed.
Girls are naturally talented at this. They just hate that we are catching on to the science of it and now know we are using it back at them.
I can’t believe you said that out loud!
lobotomyboy63 — If you smile, you are communicating openly and honestly that you’re friendly (unless you aren’t actually friendly, and are just putting on a facade, in which case, yes, I would call that manipulation). There is a difference between communicating who you are and what you want, and misrepresenting yourself to get what you really want, which you won’t communicate to the other person.
Communication: “Hi! [smile] I’d like to get to know you better. Want to get coffee sometime?”
Intent: He would like to get to know her better, possibly to launch a relationship, and thinks a coffee date is a good way to start.
Manipulation: [wordlessly pulling her hands around to see if she goes along with whatever you do.]
Intent: To find out how far he can control her actions before she calls him on it.
Manipulation (the bad kind) is bad because it’s dishonest. You can learn how to present yourself — yourself — in the best possible way, without having to resort to tactics or tricks.
Autolycus, I’m not quite sure what reasoning you’re looking for. It is a test of how much a woman will comply with what you want her to do. That is creepy and sexist. In my world, things that are creepy and sexist are horrible. Is that the reasoning you’re after?
I’m not sure about naturally. I do think that conversance with these kind of social interactions is much more heavily emphasized in women’s upbringings than in men’s.
Also, women, do you really laugh or feign interest when someone you’re interested in makes an unfunny joke?
I’ve never done that. I mean, part of what makes me interested in something is that they say things that interest and amuse me. On the other hand, I also am definitely behind the curve when it comes to social awareness.
Your only manipulating her into thinking you’re friendly if you are not actually friendly. If you are a friendly person, you are just demonstrating a part of your personality in a visual way, even if you hope that she will respond positively to your smile. I really think people in this thread are stretching the definition of “manipulation” to the breaking point.
Well, yes honestly. See, I guess I just fundamentally disagree. I think that testing people out in subtle ways like that, while perhaps being crafty and even ‘manipulative,’ is not creepy and is definitely not sexist. As far as creepiness goes, I think that term is so overused as to have lost most of its meaning. Anything can be creepy, and so can nothing. I better stop before I hijack this thread yet again…
I guess the reason many girls are upset at such tactics is they see them being used by douchebag guys whose only intent is to get laid. Or, like lobotomyboy63 said, perhaps there is some resentment about man learning how to play the game as skillfully as women do.
OK, on another note, what if instead of a kino test, a guy talks for a girl for a few minutes and then asks her to get his coat from the coat check. Would this be equally awful to you? I’m honestly asking, because while I can see where you’re coming from, I just plain don’t agree with you.
Well, yes. Ultimately the objective is to see if she will comply with his wish for a consensual blowjob in the bathroom (for example). Unfortunately most men are not psychic and most women don’t respond well to a stranger asking them for a blowjob in the bathroom. So what they do is gradually escalate the intimacy and throw in those little compliance tests to see if she is agreeable with taking it to the next level.
I find this statement amusingly ironic considering you have the same name as a famous porn star.
The dishonesty and power play make it creepy. Broadly, men are already in a privileged place in society than women. I base this on things like rape conviction rates, rape reporting rates, gender stereotypes in advertising, gender makeup of the Forbes 100 list and Congress, etc. A man seeing how far he can jerk a girl around is not new, and is harmful. Do you watch Mad Men? Don Draper is not supposed to be admired for the way he deals with women (except maybe Peggy). That sort of behaviour is not good, but it is common, and reinforced by society, and that’s why perpetrating it is creepy and inherently sexist.
Is there a reason he can’t get his coat (i.e., he’s waiting in line at the gents’), or is it a test of how much she’ll comply with his requests? If it’s the latter, yeah, I think that’s bad.
FWIW, women don’t have some mysterious dating skills that allow us to swoop in. I think girls are taught social skills better than boys, but that’s not necessarily a good thing, as those social skills may be a substitute for the actual power (financial, political, etc.) that the boys are expected to grow into but the girls aren’t. From my own experience, I’m currently having a lot of trouble with international dating skills (as detailed in this thread), so, no, there isn’t a ‘science’ that women are masters of but are trying to keep secret from those hapless men.
msmith537, it’s not the same name and I went over this three years ago. Classy, though.
I think that’s about 90% of it, yes. From me, anyhow.
Anything that’s planned, that’s thought up before he met me, is inherintly objectifying. He’s treating me as A Woman or A Hottie or An Acronym With Rating, not as me, and developing a plan for his Archetype. Touching my hand because he can’t keep his hands off me? Me, personally, not A Woman? Swoony. Touching my hand to test whether or not The Mark is compliant? Icky.
Asking me to go to coat check with him because he can’t bear to end the evening yet and wants my company? Swoony. Asking me to go to coat check with him as a test of anything at all - compliance, willingness to sleep with him, interest in him as a person - anything but going to the coat check? Icky.
If you want to know if I’m into you - ASK! Or just be patient and wait for me to tell you. Or tell me that you’re into me. Communicate, for the love of Og. Don’t test me and assume you can interpret the results - just ask!
So there’s the other 10% of my objection: objectification. Removing my personality, my vibe, my choice and even my name from the situation. I’m no longer myself, I’m the object of his projection; the conquest of his hunt.
tdn, I understand you’re saying this isn’t it and I’m misrepresenting PUA. But then why is this the language used? I kind of feel like this is another Vampire religion thread, only this time I don’t understand the jargon so I’m only able to take it on face value, while those in the know understand the truth. Help me understand, if you will.
No, she doesn’t. That’s Lords.
Sigh.
It’s FLAVOR aid, damnit! 
But in an ideal situation, it would be a mutual wish for a blowjob in the bathroom. Or, you know, for him to go down on her in the bathroom. That’s why you should escalate the intimacy by communicating, not by putting anyone through secret tests to see how ‘compliant’ they are. I think you’d be surprised at how well “Hey, do you want to go have some sex?” works if there’s genuine interest, and if there isn’t genuine interest, then you’re trying to get her to have sex she doesn’t really want, which is bad.
It reminds me strongly of Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. Carnegie gave dozens of examples of how successful people had developed techniques to help them in their interpersonal and professional relationships. Everything from sitting down after an encounter and writing the person’s name they had just met down over and over on a piece of paper, to memorizing one factoid about each person to ask about when they met next. One which stuck in my mind was one we’d probably call patronizing and perhaps even manipulative. Check out the first paragraph about Charles Schwab, but the same would hold for the second paragraph about John Wanamaker. In both cases they’re using what are essentially guilt trips to change someone’s behavior. In fact, the title of the entire section is “How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment” and I’d be hard pressed to give a better definition of “manipulative.”
The book talked endlessly about cultivating a sense of interest in other people, their interests, ideals, desires, etc. Even if, perhaps especially if, they did not co-incide with your own. As a teenager I threw this book across the room more than once. As an adult I still feel like it sometimes. I usually go back to it though because even if I think there are better ways of self improvement than “wearing a mask and [my] face growing to fit it”(props to Hemmingway) it still represents a corpus of information about my fellow humans and how they behave and feel which stands the test of time.
So here’s my contribution to this discussion. What is the essential difference between what Dale Carnegie(American icon) and these “PUA” gurus teach? Is it merely the subject matter? Carnegie is mainly restricted to the professional and business sphere, and the PUAs are in the intimate relationship sphere? I’ve not made much of a study of the PUA materials, but what I’ve read here doesn’t seem out of line with Carnegie’s advice and techniques. Translating them into an intimate sphere would necessitate things like techniques to handle physical contact and flirting, but the principles seem to be the same. HTWFAIP has principles like “Let the other person feel that the idea was his or hers”, and “Get the other person saying “yes yes” right away.” I’m not seeing a lot of difference conceptually.
From my experience I’ve mellowed a bit on how I feel about Dale Carnegie. I still don’t think I’m the kind of person who could apply his advice to my everyday life. It would feel too much to me like “being fake.” Still, I no longer throw his book across the room because I realize it works for some people and who am I to judge?
Enjoy,
Steven
The whole idea behind it is to “get laid” or get somewhere, , hence “pick up artist”, and you women do it too, and don’t tell me you don’t. I roomed with 7 chicks when I was in Orlando for about a month and I was the only guy who stayed overnight in that apartment. Not giving details. You girls just love to plan things and love to gossip, when you only have the intention of getting some. We do too. It’s that now there is proof of it with all the marketing of it. So stop picking on Autolycus. He just wants to get in your pants using these tactics. He’s not suggesting he’d use these moves to find love, because obviously that wouldn’t be love. That’s what being superficial is. Remember, most of this stuff is used in a social setting so both male and females will usually be aware of what’s going on and be single, or atleast looking for something also. Now, if the sex was really bad I can understand the complaint of not hooking up with the guy you were hoping for.
Clearly, you wouldn’t be intentionally using pick up lines or manipulative tactics on a woman you planned to marry some day or liked. How the hell would you manage explaining that one? “Hun, I was just reminiscing about that first time we met. Wow, it was such a great time. You really had all the right things to say” “Thanks, you were great too. Sure was a great night” But what he meant to say “Ya, all those things I was doing to flatter you were artificial… but I still love you”… I don’t think that one is gonna fly and I doubt one would go on living with that guilt. That would surely add tension to the relationship and it would be unsuccessful.
Errr… ::shuffles awkwardly:: What you say is true, but again, it’s not really my main goal. I think a much better thing to learn from the PUA community is to take the good stuff, throw away the superficial crap, and learn how to be more confident, outgoing, charismatic, etc etc. That way I could be myself, find love, and also have the tools necessary for some play as well if desired. Maybe it’s too much to ask, I dunno. Everyone is talking to me like I’m some poster child for this whole PUA thing, but I’m really a total novice.
The thing I have learned about seduction is that you can never get somebody to do something they truly don’t want to do. The art of seduction is coaxing people into letting down their guard long enough for them to do things they might not otherwise think prudent. Does that sound like it could be misused? Hell yeah. Is it fundamentally a bad thing? I don’t think so. I’ve read that in seduction, ultimately the power lies in the seduced. Food for thought.
I’d be willing to subject this to experimentation, but I’m afraid I don’t enjoy being kicked in the nuts, slapped in the face, or perhaps if i’m lucky politely rejected. In less polite terms, I call bullshit on this.
Isn’t he? Seems like he is. Seems like what **tdn **is saying, too.
I’m not trying to pick on anyone, I swear. He brought it up. 
I’m trying to see what I’ve got wrong, if anything, about this movement as a whole.
Er, I call bullshit on that. Has any of this actually happened to you when you expressed sexual interest in a woman you thought might have been sexually interested in you?
I was kidding. Sarcasm.
Really though, that is what most people study this for. Should someone take up a dating course to help their personal social dilemma’s that would be completely different. Or if they are studying to educate themselves on psychological behaviors and body language. But the majority of guys who are into this do it for game. I know you’re not that type, I just had to use you as an example.
Then be yourself.
If you find love, and it is based on lies, it won’t last. Playing with love is for children. Love is permanent and infinite. Stand tall and be yourself, in all of your glorious imperfections. Just my uninformed 2 cents.