Poeticlyskuac, I didn't say all, I said most of what I had been exposed to, which is, admittedly, a very limited subset. A few examples:

I don't play games or give shit tests, so all of that stuff about how a guy should respond to is ineffectual. PU teachings in this regard are actually more likely to be a hinderance than a help, because it teaches you to see my objections/logisitcal issues/whatever as a shit test and respond to it in that manner when I'm actually stating a genuine problem or establishing a barrier that I don't want you to cross.

From what I've seen of Gambler's stealth seduction, I know exactly how I would respond to it. I wouldn't notice until the point when it became incredibly obvious, and then I'd freak out.

Overt boyfriend destroyers of the type that I see on this site don't work on me (seriously, I am not so weak-minded that a mere suggestion is going to compel me to break things off), but they do a really good job of making me supiscious.

For the whole AMOG thing--you're just the biggest douchebag in the group, and I really don't like douchebags.

If you come across as either a player or a bad boy, I'm not interested in you. If you say things that I recognize as trying to appeal, as Gambler would put it, to my "bad girl" side, I think that you're trying to play me and get suspicious.

Need I go on?

That said, I have only a passing affliation with Adam Lyons' work, but that is a scarily intelligent guy. Someone employing his techniques might well find them to, at least to some degree, be effective.

Why does a man have a right to expect a repsonse? Unless in front of a grand jury or in a courtroom, people very rarely have a right to have someone respond to a question that they have asked.

And it's actually much kinder in some cases to reject a guy from the get-go rather than wait. If I know that I have a boyfriend and am not interested in you (at this point, I've accepted that most guys who speak to me unsolicited are interested in either dating or sex--I wish it weren't so, but experience has taught me otherwise), it's easier and causes less pain to reject from the outset than later on, when the guy may be more invested. I dispute your assertion that a rejection of this kind produces a large amount of pain in the guy--it's such a minor form of rejection and, seriously, if he can't handle that he really needs to man up. Everybody gets socially rejected at some time or another. It's far more painful when it comes from friends or people that you have known from a long time than when it happens from a stranger. Besides, what right does he have to expect any sort of specific reaction from the woman that he's talking to?

I never said that I didn't manipulate people, but you're missing the thrust of my argument and leaving out the link that I established between misrepresentation of self and dishonesty/manipulation. None of your arguments will be effectual until you address that because it is at the heart of what I object to.

To some extent, in many cases you can't fully seperate the person from what they do. (That said, in some cases you can.) Say I were a famous rock star. I might long for someone that I knew liked me for me, but being a rock star is a large part of who am I as well. Asking people to like me for being myself apart from that (and in this I'm not talking about the trappings that it brings) is actually asking them not to consider a large part of my personality and life when asking them to decide whether or not they want to be with me. It's also entirely valid for women (or anyone) to care about the socioecomic statues/income potential of potential partners--if you get married down the line, that's a big part of determining your lifestyle. I'm not saying that you should like a person solely for those things, but they are a factor to consider when marrying or otherwise settling down with someone.

You speak from your own experience, I speak from mine. I don't expect guys to lie, and am extremely turned off when they do. Again, there are varying levels of truth. I don't object to glancing over a subject only to treat it in more detail later (as is typically down with severe tramua or pains). That isn't lying, or not the type of lying that I object to, depending on how it done, of course.

I disagree with the PU as smokescreen analogy, since, as already discussed, PU changes who you are to some extent. How could learning to interact with people differently, or learning to view them in a different light, not possibly have some transformative effect upon one's personality?

I argue this from a man to woman perspective rather than a woman to man perspective because of the site that I'm on. I'm presenting an argument in oppostion to. When addressing the woman-to-man perspective, I'm not really arguing against anyone. As always, I would say that my edicts are non gender-specific, and should apply to everyone in kind.

Shyler,

Not all women play games. I advise avoiding those that do--it just isn't worth it. (That said, I do my best to avoid guys who play games as well).

Fin,

I'm amazingly confused about what you want. I've already laid out my argument, although, apparently, not in a format that you prefer.

You are correct, sex without informed consent (and one's capability to consent) is rape. With manipulation in this area,, however, there are multiple levels and a lot of grayness to address.

In the interests of time, I need to go and provide more detail later


I've already given you an example of deception in PU--the Ross Jefferies video. See above for more detail.

So you're arguing that PU is manipulation?

In which case we have to define manipulation. See with me, manipulation is removing a persons informed consent and as such, manipulation for sex is rape.

Could we use a different word? Manipulation I think is far too heavily loaded for what we you/I are/am describing. Persuasion?

I can't track back through to the RJ video as I am currently working on an essay, could you summarise it for me?

-------------

If you're wanting to know my line of reasoning it goes:

PU is not a super-powered hypnosis system, it can't remove free will, it just simply isn't strong enough, it persuades, it helps logistics, but at the end of the day it's two consenting parties.

These techniques are not as the previous posters have suggested. So the whole issue over whether these "techniques" are moral is mute, as people are discussing fairytale techniques.
-------------

I said that wrong anyone can express interest thats not a big deal. I could tell you come watch a movie with when i first met you or lets go have some coffe, or i could say your cute, sure it might seem like interest but its not my true interest or intentions. My true interest and intentions are wanting to get in your pants.

Unless your boyfriend flat out explictly said he wanted to meet up with you to smash when he 1st meet you he was being manipulative. You realize your boyfriend only took on those dates and did all that other stuff in between just to get in your pants. Unless you tell me he smashed you before all that courting he did. He's just as guilty of what you're accussing all the PUA's of.

_________________
Friendzone 1-vt51424.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Melissa


You speak as if anyone has EVER tried a BF Destroyer on you; or as if anyone has ever tried to pick you up before.

I believe all of you assumptions are made out of what you expect an Actual pick up artist to be like.

Had you actually come in contact with one, I believe your entire perspective would change.

Also it's completely naive to say that you are completely proof to anything a pua throws at you. I can honestly say that no matter how much you read up on this; the right pua could surely pick you up with ease.

You aren't the only one of your kind, you guys are actually eaiser to PU because your minds are so consumed with what you want to avoid that you don't notice what's going on right before your eyes.(easy target) Jackpot

Also, to say you don't shittest as a women is to say you have low standards if any

No offense, but I take it you are what "society" says is unattractive, so need you not worry about any of this stuff. Ok sweetheart?


The cave you fear to enter hold the treasure you seek ;]


Fuze

Fin,

No, I am not arguing that PU is manipulation--well, in a way, but that's a simplication of my argument.

I am arguing against certain forms of PU because of the way in which I feel it combines manipulation and dishonesty with a misrpresentation of self. I object to manipulation and dishonesty largely to the extent that they are used in order to project a false image of oneself.

The RJ video is the first one in the Pickup Videos thread. In it, he bascially goes up to a woman and says, "Hi, I can tell that you're the kind of person who can imagine things quite vividly in your mind, and that even when you're looking at someone and seem to be paying attention, in your head you're far away in your favorite vacation spot." (a paraphrase, not a quote) Basically, he's misreprenting himself as someone who has deep insight into her character and being by stating an observation that actually applies to about 99.8% (and that's being conservative) of the human population.

To return to the rape/informed consent discusion, it is one that becomes very difficult to quanitify. Some things should be condemned although, for the purposes of maintaining a free society, they cannot be outlawed. Circumstances can also change--I'm not going to condemn the guy (or woman and, again, this is a general statement that is not always applicable) who acts in a certain way because they believe they want something and then later decides that they don't want it. If, however, you are someone who intentionally lies in order to get sex, you are scum.

The idea behind statutory rape is what we're discussing--ie. that people below this age do not possess the capacity to consent to sex, ie. they don't have the reasoning capabilites, knowledge, or whatever is necssary to truly give informed consent. People above a certain age are presumed to have whatever capabilites society deems is required. Can someone still be incapable of informed consent? Absolutely, typically via either alcohol or drugs. But I would agree that manipuation (both misrepresentation of self manipulation and abuse designed to lower the other person't self esteem) can make someone impossible of informed consent as well. The most extreme of these cases are indeed prosecuted. There are a lot of shades of gray here, though, enough that this kind of thing is difficult to fully pin down one way or the other. You also get instances where people simply misunderstand one another. Unlike the cup example that I gave earlier, there are instances in which situations in which one person feels used arise as a result of no wrongdoing on the other person's part.

I never argued that PU is a super-powered hyponosis system. I would, however, argue that in cases in works in such a way as to make informed consent impossible, something that is always wrong regardless of whether or not a rape charge results from it.

Reo,

Your post is a perfect example of one of the problems that I have with PU. Everything in life, or even everything between men and women, does not boil down to sex. I have no doubt that my boyfriend did want to have sex with me, but that is hardly all that he wanted. He wanted a relationship from the beginning.

The idea that he, or any other guy, is only out for sex actually cheapens interactions between the genders.

Fuze,

The number of assumptions (some of which are quite sexist and mysogenestic, as was yours) that are thrown around here about me are amazing. I could be a 300 pound woman with warts and a mustached, but, then again, so could you. (We are on the internet, after all). I, however, see no need to start making assumptions about either your sex life, your personality, or your looks, so I fail to see why you feel so compelled with me.

I have had people try boyfriend destroyers on me, and I know for a fact that I have been approached by ppl who study PU. Where do you think that my opinions come from?

I'm also astonished at the seeming inablity of anyone on this thread to actually read what I write. First we have that whole nonsense of how I object to casual sex (I don't, btw), then people keep hammering away at my comments about manipulation while neglecting how it relates to the rest of my argument, and now people are claiming that I said I was entirely PU-proof (which I actually never said). If you read, you'll note that what I actually said was that most of the PU techniques that I had been exposed to thus far would be ineffectual on me for a variety of reasons, sometimes because they're inapplicalbe and sometimes because they make me suspicious.

As I said in a previous post, most people scroll right through your post.. Then again why should they write to you in that case. All I'm saying is it couldn't be anymore obvious based on the things you say that you are in fact unattractive( An that's me being nice about it)

And there's no way for your to prove any of the guys who so called approached you studied pick up. I found that Many of the techniques I was applying on women were things I were doing way before I ever heard of PU.

Excuse me if I get a little personAl, believe it or not I'm trying to help you.

Question: how did you meet your current boyfriend?

And.. Not that you should feel a need to prove yourself, however I just wanna prove my point. Do you have a facebook? I'd be glad to see this. I promise not to spam you with any messages of any kind, nor wilt I sent thee a friend request(jus me being u)

Whatchu gotta lose?

Fuze

Hobbit,

Actually, there's still a difference: I condemned PU as a system, not the individuals who practice it.

Fuze,

I wait with bated breathe for your judgement on the precise degree and nature of my attractiveness.

Seriously, though, why should I care what you think in this regard? I know whether or not you're actually right, and I'm not going to convince you of either position regardless of what I say since I have no intention of showing you my Facebook. (I have a strict policy against friending ppl I meet online).

If that's you being nice about it, I'd love to see you being mean about it.

And yes, there are times that you can known know for certain, based upon precisely what was used.

What I said has nothing to do with PUA, It has everything to do with people in general.

Whether he wanted a relationship or sex. His methods for attaining his goals were manipulative. His actions towards you were done in a safe cautious fake way where he could avoid you giving him harsh criticism and a immediate rejection for being too forward. So he took the manipulative courtship route first and it just so happened to his favor that you like it him back.

Imagine if he did all those things then you decided you just wanted to be friends. He would have gone ballistic for wasting his time and money on you in his efforts to manipulate you.
As far as I'm concerned you have no arguement. The same thing your blaming PUA for is what exactly what you're dating.

_________________
Friendzone 1-vt51424.html?postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Reo,

That only goes to show that you have entirely misunderstood my argument.

For the last time, manipulation itself is not what I object to; rather, I object to a particular type of either manipulation or dishonesty when it used in ordet to present a false image of the self.

Isn't a false image of self not admitting he(boyfriend) wants to rail you? I don't talk to every person with the intent of sex, but I am always well aware of how attracted I am to them in a very short period. A person is very likely to check for sexual fertility naturally(hip-waist ratio, youth, athletic, hair, big butt, child feeding boobs, etc.), men do this to every women. Studies have stated that men naturally check out women, it is a unconscious effort.

This statement is as broad as your RJ argument. Every manipulation presents a false image of self. I don't understand your statement I guess, please elaborate. As I stated courtship is all about false presentation, any chance to show your brighter side and hide your darker side is manipulating your presentation to them. Perhaps you didn't outright say you wanted to fuck them so that you presented yourself differently. Courtship is about false presentation, it is about jumping through hoops.

You have qualified a person, whether you were conscious of it or not is entirely different. You asked where they worked or what they did. You have asked what they liked(looking for commonalities). You have inquired about the person to gain further insight into their ability to be a good mate. I absolutely call shenanigans.

Some of the routine lines transferred would be lame, but a good conversationalist with some solid tools, charisma, good looking, can get you to definitely show attraction, with the right understanding of body language and correct eye contact he may even woo you enough. I find you stubborn enough to not, but some people who have gained some personality traits through pick up can definitely woo you.

Our courtship process is a game, make no mistake of it. It is a game, if your boyfriend didn't jump through certain hoops.

He got your recognition. Got you to look at him.

He got your attention. You paid attention to him.

He got you to interact. During this interaction he qualified himself, made himself appealing through looks/build/dress/witty/personality/style/smell/fiscal value/etc. He likely started building attraction/sexual tension with eye contact as well. Building comfort. If he doesn't qualify you move on, jumping through hoops.

He touched you. At some point the sexual tension was starting to build when the distance closed over time. Then touching began and began with regularity. Intimate touching, hugs, and kissing began to happen. If he advances to fast he is denied thus playing a game/jumping through hoops.

At some point we hit the final step in courtship and that is WHOOPIE. The final step of every courtship process is SEX.

That is the game, there are no if, ands, or buts those are the steps to courtship that is the GAME. There is no way you can say he didn't otherwise it would have been straight up, You "Your Hot". Him "Your Hot too, let's have sex". That isn't the courtship process, it is a game. You followed a process and it led you to a relationship which is great but courtship is the same for a hook up or long term relationship. But it is a game, there is no forward there is manipulation about intentions nothing more.

_________________
Just another guy from back in the day.

Blogging again living life: http://www.Scienceofnaturalgame.com