PUA Forum :: Long Term Relationships, where does the PUA go wrong?

Hey Guys,
Just a small theory ive come up with and I would like to get some opinions on.

From my experience ive always had problems in maintaing a long-term relationship with a woman ive picked up. I always end up getting bored and walking out. I attribute it to the following. As far as I can see there are 3 types of relationships. I based this theory of relationships on a constant struggle for power or the "will to power" (read some Nietzsche if your interested).

Dominate -> Submissive
Submissive -> Dominate
Person 1 == Person 2 (Equality)

###Dominate -> Submissive###
As far as I know, this tends to be the position of the PUA. The PUA, becomes the dominate one in the realtionship as he uses confidence, control and power to keep the other person interested, usually comprimising rarely (becoming the "alpha male").

The problem with this approach is that I find you get bored quickly, usually once you find that you no longer have a "use" for the other person. In my experience, not many people like putting most of the effort into a relationship and getting little or no returns.

I also find it harder to respect someone who is easy to "predict/control/manipulate", does anyone get this?

This might be the traditional role of the alpha male, handed down to us since the begining of evolution, but from what ive seen, it rarely works in modern society (we aren't in the 1950s anymore). Almost every serious PUA (from what I know), cannot maintain a healthy long term relationship.

###Submissive -> Dominate###
Im sure most of us have been here (I know I have), the AFC that buys his woman flowers, is overly needy and willing to do almost anything to keep her happy. Yeah its great to have somone who cares, but I find that the dominate tends to get bored quickly, as the person is unbeleivable predictable and is willing to do almost anything.

If the dominate does not get bored the submissive, might eventually work out that they are being "used" as they seem to get very little out of the relationship that they put so much into.

###Person 1 == Person 2###
Finally we have equality, both parties get about as much returns as they deliver, making it are fairly equal relationship.

Both parties feel that they get something out of the relationship and their partner isn't always predictable. They are both able to argue/debate and comprimise for each other when it is required.

This is my idea of a great relationship. I like women who I perceive as an equal, not just on a personal level, but an intellectual level as well.

What way can a "PUA" go about maintaing a healthy relationship based on equality?

Also, does anyone have some criticism or anything they would like to add to this theory?

Cheers,
-HomeWrecker

I think I see what your saying Locke.

You see my traditional interpretation of a pua differs to yours, ive always seen pua's as a term to keep away from. Pick up artist, in my view has always been about the pickup (as the name suggests) not a relationship.

Im starting to see now, at least in the more respected pua's that its more about overall improvement and being yourself. And your right, you need to find women that fit your standards and expectations. This creates equality. I wish I had thought of that, and im starting to see it

As for the "AFC" tendencies. They are a form of frustration, a secure person can express these feelings without fear of rejection.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted any of this!

Thanks,

Author:	HomeWrecker [ Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Long Term Relationships, where does the PUA go wrong?
Hey Guys, Just a small theory ive come up with and I would like to get some opinions on. From my experience ive always had problems in maintaing a long-term relationship with a woman ive picked up. I always end up getting bored and walking out. I attribute it to the following. As far as I can see there are 3 types of relationships. I based this theory of relationships on a constant struggle for power or the "will to power" (read some Nietzsche if your interested). Dominate -> Submissive Submissive -> Dominate Person 1 == Person 2 (Equality) ###Dominate -> Submissive### As far as I know, this tends to be the position of the PUA. The PUA, becomes the dominate one in the realtionship as he uses confidence, control and power to keep the other person interested, usually comprimising rarely (becoming the "alpha male"). The problem with this approach is that I find you get bored quickly, usually once you find that you no longer have a "use" for the other person. In my experience, not many people like putting most of the effort into a relationship and getting little or no returns. I also find it harder to respect someone who is easy to "predict/control/manipulate", does anyone get this? This might be the traditional role of the alpha male, handed down to us since the begining of evolution, but from what ive seen, it rarely works in modern society (we aren't in the 1950s anymore). Almost every serious PUA (from what I know), cannot maintain a healthy long term relationship. ###Submissive -> Dominate### Im sure most of us have been here (I know I have), the AFC that buys his woman flowers, is overly needy and willing to do almost anything to keep her happy. Yeah its great to have somone who cares, but I find that the dominate tends to get bored quickly, as the person is unbeleivable predictable and is willing to do almost anything. If the dominate does not get bored the submissive, might eventually work out that they are being "used" as they seem to get very little out of the relationship that they put so much into. ###Person 1 == Person 2### Finally we have equality, both parties get about as much returns as they deliver, making it are fairly equal relationship. Both parties feel that they get something out of the relationship and their partner isn't always predictable. They are both able to argue/debate and comprimise for each other when it is required. This is my idea of a great relationship. I like women who I perceive as an equal, not just on a personal level, but an intellectual level as well. What way can a "PUA" go about maintaing a healthy relationship based on equality? Also, does anyone have some criticism or anything they would like to add to this theory? Cheers, -HomeWrecker

Author:	ZEGlass [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:15 am ]
Post subject:
I would say that there are a couple of guidelines that you could follow in order to promote harmonious long-term relationships. 1) When you go sarging, be aware of the kind of women that you are picking up. The kind of woman that you are going to try to attract for casual sex is going to be different than the kind of woman that you try to attract for a long-term relationship. 2) If the typical PUA relationship has the man being dominant and the typical AFC relationship has the man being submissive, then hybridize! Be a PUA when you meet her but then mix it up. You don't have to be the smooth operator all the time. If you're going out dancing, bring her a corsage, then ramp up the social dominance at the club, but then take her back home and make her a panini sandwich. 3) Invite her to share dominance in the partnership with you. Pickup might give you the upper hand initially, but give it away. You can't be her equal if you keep a secret that gives you power over her. This might be the hardest conversation of your early relationship, both because you'll have to explain to her your motivations and your methods without losing her trust and because you're going to have to concede your power. Neither of these is comfortable, but they will be necessary to achieve the partnership of equals that you desire.

Author:	Sexcellent [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Long Term Relationships, where does the PUA go wrong?
Quote: Hey Guys, Just a small theory ive come up with and I would like to get some opinions on. From my experience ive always had problems in maintaing a long-term relationship with a woman ive picked up. I always end up getting bored and walking out. I attribute it to the following. As far as I can see there are 3 types of relationships. I based this theory of relationships on a constant struggle for power or the "will to power" (read some Nietzsche if your interested). Dominate -> Submissive Submissive -> Dominate Person 1 == Person 2 (Equality) ###Dominate -> Submissive### As far as I know, this tends to be the position of the PUA. The PUA, becomes the dominate one in the realtionship as he uses confidence, control and power to keep the other person interested, usually comprimising rarely (becoming the "alpha male"). The problem with this approach is that I find you get bored quickly, usually once you find that you no longer have a "use" for the other person. In my experience, not many people like putting most of the effort into a relationship and getting little or no returns. I also find it harder to respect someone who is easy to "predict/control/manipulate", does anyone get this? This might be the traditional role of the alpha male, handed down to us since the begining of evolution, but from what ive seen, it rarely works in modern society (we aren't in the 1950s anymore). Almost every serious PUA (from what I know), cannot maintain a healthy long term relationship. ###Submissive -> Dominate### Im sure most of us have been here (I know I have), the AFC that buys his woman flowers, is overly needy and willing to do almost anything to keep her happy. Yeah its great to have somone who cares, but I find that the dominate tends to get bored quickly, as the person is unbeleivable predictable and is willing to do almost anything. If the dominate does not get bored the submissive, might eventually work out that they are being "used" as they seem to get very little out of the relationship that they put so much into. ###Person 1 == Person 2### Finally we have equality, both parties get about as much returns as they deliver, making it are fairly equal relationship. Both parties feel that they get something out of the relationship and their partner isn't always predictable. They are both able to argue/debate and comprimise for each other when it is required. This is my idea of a great relationship. I like women who I perceive as an equal, not just on a personal level, but an intellectual level as well. What way can a "PUA" go about maintaing a healthy relationship based on equality? Also, does anyone have some criticism or anything they would like to add to this theory? Cheers, -HomeWrecker i think you are really on to something here. that is pretty brilliant. the advice i always gave people about being PUA in a relationship is to balance it with being AFC once in a while. i couldnt figure out why this works better than always being PUA but i think you might have explained it. see there are 2 people in the relationship, and that is why always being PUA (too dominant) is going to ruin it. SHE has to be happy with the relationship too, and maybe, just maybe, being AFC once in a while will give her that slight reassurance that she has some upper hand or dominance in the relationship. this will make her feel like SHE is getting something out of it too.

Author:	HomeWrecker [ Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:43 am ]
Post subject:
Good to get some positive feedback There definatelly needs to be a balance in my opinion. Does anyone else have anything to add?

Author:	casanovareborn [ Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:
You have to keep the mystery and romance alive. Relationships would work better if you take your girlfriend out some place special, like to the beach to watch the sunset. After she sees that you have something to offer, you can gradually stop the theatrics without her caring too much. Every once in a while though, do something suprising.

PUA Forum https://pick-up-artist-forum.com/

Long Term Relationships, where does the PUA go wrong? https://pick-up-artist-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=128&t=36575	Page 1 of 1

Author:	SeekNDestroy [ Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Man, forget all the PUA stuff when going into a relationship. You no longer need it. You might use some stuff, but if you really like the girl, you should do what you feel inside your heart, and not what you are thinking inside your head. You can call it a "AFC+PUA mix" or whatever you like it, but I call it love. Humans need love. And if you want a serious relationship, I believe you should stop sarging sluts and start sarging good girls with values. I did that, and Im very happy now. I unconsciously use PUA stuff sometimes and it helps a bit, but what really helps a lot is doing what you really feel. And i dont like to call it AFC, i like to call it being a gentleman. If you are a gentleman, and throw away your ego and shit, you are done

Author:	The Big Bad Wolf [ Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Good Post. The PUA mindset is hard to shake, though. Once you get used to doing stuff as you want, trying to revert to some halfway AFC is difficult. It's then better to find a strong woman. The one with the strong, well-balanced personality. Both a queen and a magician chick. I find myself in wanting for the challenging chicks, not the regular, easily subdued kind, since these are usually boring within a few weeks, or months. The alternative is having Sexual LTR's and female friends, instead of banking for one chick to fulfill your needs. I also think that one of the problems that follows the PUA is that one can easily become almost too good, and the only really attractive chick is the one you haven't had yet, or the former Oneitis. If I am going to bring in the Jungian archetypes into this, I'd say this is the shadow of being PUA, or Lover-type... (the positive shadow, that comes with unbalanced abundance) the addicted Lover, the insatiable. at that point it should become clear that one needs to work a bit on the inner game, getting off the Satyriasis/God-image, and seek a more balanced view of ones situation... At least that's my opinion. PUA is not just about getting the girls, but, almost like spiritual practices, it involves the search of a better self, a healthier world-view, and a positive life-style/attitude. Becoming Pan reincarnated is not healthy PUA, which again goes back to the problem of abundance... When you find yourself plowing though girls, yes, you are Casanova, but does this bring happiness ? Is this all you want in life ? Oh, and I love the Nietzsche reference. The concepts HomeWrecker brought into this is remarkably accurate, and if you look further you'll probably find it holds true for most parts of life Cheers!

Author:	HomeWrecker [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:11 am ]
Post subject:
Thanks for all the positive feedback guys And thank you big bad wolf, I definitely like the point you made. I know I have struggled at times in creating my own reality and better self and at the same time, not becoming too self-involved, withdrawn or just plain egotistical. I think sometimes we view ourselves too highly, and this itself creates many problems. At the moment, I am currently reading through a lot of philosophy, psychology and even some spiritual texts to try and create a sustainable view that removes these barriers but at the same time brings greater confidence and satisfaction to your life. I would like to compile all of these texts, with an explanation to how it applies to the "PUA", when I feel I have found the answers and would appreciate your feedback

Author:	Locke [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Long Term Relationships, where does the PUA go wrong?
Quote: Hey Guys, Just a small theory ive come up with and I would like to get some opinions on. From my experience ive always had problems in maintaing a long-term relationship with a woman ive picked up. I always end up getting bored and walking out. I attribute it to the following. As far as I can see there are 3 types of relationships. I based this theory of relationships on a constant struggle for power or the "will to power" (read some Nietzsche if your interested). Dominate -> Submissive Submissive -> Dominate Person 1 == Person 2 (Equality) ###Dominate -> Submissive### As far as I know, this tends to be the position of the PUA. The PUA, becomes the dominate one in the realtionship as he uses confidence, control and power to keep the other person interested, usually comprimising rarely (becoming the "alpha male"). The problem with this approach is that I find you get bored quickly, usually once you find that you no longer have a "use" for the other person. In my experience, not many people like putting most of the effort into a relationship and getting little or no returns. I also find it harder to respect someone who is easy to "predict/control/manipulate", does anyone get this? This might be the traditional role of the alpha male, handed down to us since the begining of evolution, but from what ive seen, it rarely works in modern society (we aren't in the 1950s anymore). Almost every serious PUA (from what I know), cannot maintain a healthy long term relationship. ###Submissive -> Dominate### Im sure most of us have been here (I know I have), the AFC that buys his woman flowers, is overly needy and willing to do almost anything to keep her happy. Yeah its great to have somone who cares, but I find that the dominate tends to get bored quickly, as the person is unbeleivable predictable and is willing to do almost anything. If the dominate does not get bored the submissive, might eventually work out that they are being "used" as they seem to get very little out of the relationship that they put so much into. ###Person 1 == Person 2### Finally we have equality, both parties get about as much returns as they deliver, making it are fairly equal relationship. Both parties feel that they get something out of the relationship and their partner isn't always predictable. They are both able to argue/debate and comprimise for each other when it is required. This is my idea of a great relationship. I like women who I perceive as an equal, not just on a personal level, but an intellectual level as well. What way can a "PUA" go about maintaing a healthy relationship based on equality? Also, does anyone have some criticism or anything they would like to add to this theory? Cheers, -HomeWrecker It not about control, dominance, submissiveness, or manipulation. What you guys are not realizing is that you don't need to mix AFC with PUA, nor revert to anything. You need to be yourself, and find a woman that fits your expectations and standards. One in which you fit their expectations and standards. Until then, you are just dating, sarging, and closing. That is WHY you don't get into relationships with everyone...you have to wait for these factors. You have a terrific post here, but everyone is still mistaken. The true PUA isn't TOO dominant or controlling. The "true" PUA that is good in relationships is someone who is a bit flexible and as you stated, based off of relationship equality. You don't balance your attributes, you open them up and let her balance them. As long as none of those attributes are a need for power and control, you have no reason to worry, and certainly have no reason to place in some "AFC" tendencies. And if you believe you have to mix it like that, then you have not grown the way you thought. You have just buried bad habits...and not erased them. AFC tendencies don't exist for the PUA....just feelings that you can express.

Author:	HomeWrecker [ Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:
I think I see what your saying Locke. You see my traditional interpretation of a pua differs to yours, ive always seen pua's as a term to keep away from. Pick up artist, in my view has always been about the pickup (as the name suggests) not a relationship. Im starting to see now, at least in the more respected pua's that its more about overall improvement and being yourself. And your right, you need to find women that fit your standards and expectations. This creates equality. I wish I had thought of that, and im starting to see it As for the "AFC" tendencies. They are a form of frustration, a secure person can express these feelings without fear of rejection. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted any of this! Thanks,

Author:	Locke [ Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I think I see what your saying Locke. You see my traditional interpretation of a pua differs to yours, ive always seen pua's as a term to keep away from. Pick up artist, in my view has always been about the pickup (as the name suggests) not a relationship. Im starting to see now, at least in the more respected pua's that its more about overall improvement and being yourself. And your right, you need to find women that fit your standards and expectations. This creates equality. I wish I had thought of that, and im starting to see it As for the "AFC" tendencies. They are a form of frustration, a secure person can express these feelings without fear of rejection. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted any of this! Thanks, nope, you got it right on man! You're actions won't be AFC, because they are your actions, not an AFC's. And speaking of AFC, AFCAdam has had a girlfriend for like 10billion years and he is the "number 2 pick-up artist in the World." Just an example

Author:	HomeWrecker [ Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:38 am ]
Post subject:
Thanks for that Locke. And its good to hear about this AFCAdam guy lol.

Author:	Gavlar [ Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Long Term Relationships, where does the PUA go wrong?
Forget 'is this pua, is this afc' for a second, and be real.. PUA is pickup, but the rest is different. Mystery and being spontaneous are still important, but in pickup you are making her feel a little smaller to make you a high value male, but in a relationship if she always feels small she's going to feel like a piece of meat, unappreciated. so from time to time reward her by making her feel special sometimes etc, you arent AFC at all because AFC is doing it too much, whereas here it will be romantic because it is special, cos you dont do it all the time

Author:	zmbcm1 [ Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Long Term Relationships, where does the PUA go wrong?
Wow... This reads like a nice guy circlejerk. But back to the subject, no, you should never give up your dominance. Girls lean on you as a fixed point which won't move around. During my most successful phases in my LTRs, girls loved when they knew I was unbudging and unfailing regardless of how much pressure I was under and from who. They actually TOLD me they loved it that I was dominant and took the lead. Don't confuse having a soft side with being a beta bitch. Your soft side is something they should see when they're down, and need you, or when they're treating you right. It's not AFC to cook dinner and buy a girl flowers when she's having a rough day, or when everything is going well. It's a treat that tells her you care for her and you love her. It's also something you ONLY do when there is no question about your position in the relationship, and she treats you with respect and doesn't take you for granted. It's also not AFC to let her decide which restaurant you'll go on a date to, or to say sorry when you KNOW you made a mistake (yes, everyone makes mistakes, and admitting to them (but only by own admission, not because of pressure), is a sign of confidence). It IS beta to supplicate, to tolerate any and all attitude from your gf, and to let her control you. When they are disrespectful or bossy, it should never be tolerated, and punished with a cold uncaring attitude and distance. If a girl starts taking you for granted, you need to cut back on the affection and stop doing her favors. You pull when she pulls, and push when she pushes. Eventually they realize that its more rewarding to pull, and act out much less frequently and appreciate the relationship more, and you're both happy. You don't need to have control over the girl to be alpha. You do need to have control over yourself, and your relationship. Draw boundaries and hold her to them. Hold her accountable when she wrongs you, and be sweet to her when she is sweet to you. PUA principles still apply. Guys who madly fall in love and lose their personal identity in favor of identifying as a couple in every aspect, turn in to AFC bitches, and girls get bored. When the girl pulls away the guy runs after and becomes even more beta, becoming conciliatory and giving to make her happy, and eventually the girl cant take it anymore and cuts ties and runs off for the next "bro". I've seen it happen too many times, and it almost happened to me (because I turned in to a chump for a little while). Don't be an idiot by going down this worn road.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	n2thevoid [ Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Long Term Relationships, where does the PUA go wrong?
PUA isn't designed for long-term relationships, there's no transition to creating power imbalances to having a healthy relationship that's why PUA is crap.