Some Stuff About PUA (very long)

[Anacardo]

Diablo,

Let's really humor me; go ahead and rattle these universal characteristics off. Also, yay Light Side, booooooooo everyone else.

Alamo,

You seem like a thinker. I feel like you could have chosen a better philosophical system to energize your despondent mind than PUA, of all things. Maybe thinking that makes me an [censored]!

Teeps,

No offense taken, I guess. I'm constantly baffled at your choices of when and why to fly off the handle, I must say.



This thread has me taking guids and KKF semi-seriously as idea men. Maybe I should get some fresh air.

[Anacardo]

Oh, and BK -

How often do you cheat on your wife?

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

Cardo,

In your vision of a perfect world, how would females go about choosing the men they want to have sex with?

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Teeps,

No offense taken, I guess. I'm constantly baffled at your choices of when and why to fly off the handle, I must say.

[/ QUOTE ]
It baffles me that these are the responses you came up with. I was perfectly calm when I wrote my response and I stand by what I said. You have some very severe distortions that you perpetuate. I could go through this thread and highlight the "all"s, "every"s, "never"s and "none"s, but I don't want to be accused of stalking.


It baffles me that you continue to find new and inventive ways to disregard the advice people give you. On IM you usually stop responding and go idle. On 2p2 you pick parts that you don't like or concentrate on personality flaws of the writer and move on. NICE TRICK!


It baffles me that you would think you are so smart but not be able to see how illogical and irrational you are from minute-to-minute. I stand by my claim that you should look into therapy. I think it would do you a lot of good.


I look forward to you inventing a reason to disregard or ignore this post.

[Alamo]

[ QUOTE ]

how do you pick up chicks when you whine like one?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you think my previous post is whining, go ahead. It seems like throwing mud is your thing, and an effort from me to actually exchange convictions and ideas falls on def ears. So be it.

And to answer your question, you might be surprised, as I surprised myself. Nowadays I am a married man, so picking up chicks is really not an issue in my life, as I love my wife, and currently really have no need for other women in my life. So it is all theory I am talking about, even though I use some of the things I have learned over the years to keep my marriage a happy one.

[ QUOTE ]

I just meant, you, bk, and naj are retarded because you keep making blanket assumptions...like people are doing to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

People like you obviously, like below. Which makes you a retard by your own standards. But tell me, which blanket assumptions did I make? Please help me out on that one, because I am lost.

[ QUOTE ]

That is all. I dont hate on PUA (unless its thebruiser500), I think most would agree. im pretty sure I post in every single thread about chicks (becuae it is one fo the few topics I know front and back), and Im pretty sure that me and bk have never had an argument between us, I think he is cool. You sound like a lady on the other hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
And how exactly is that? Because I am somewhat able to convert my ideas into polite english?
If you don't feel comfortable, I could throw in some insults if you insist, you seem to be more comfortable with that style of communicating.
Or maybe it is because my english is not good enough to express my ideas and convictions, who knows.

But at the end of the day, you are just some guy having an opinion about me based on a few posts I made, and that is more than ok with me.

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think it is lame to pay for lessons, but I also think its lame to pay for poker lessons. When. there. are. tons. of. free. resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again you assume I paid for anything (this is what I referred to above, this makes you a retard by your own standards, right?), while I already have stated that I did not, the mASF forum was all I needed back in the days.
And even if I would have paid for anything, I would not really worry about your opinion anyway, since you are just some guy that goes out of his way to make negative comments, without ever offering a sound explanation why. And when you do offer an explanation at all, well, meh, you have failed to impress me until now.

You seem to have very low tolerance for people that try to better themselves in one way or another. And extrapolating the few arguments you use makes any student of any concept, language or whatnot lame by your standards.

I speak 6 languages, and I have taken lessons on 3 of them, which would make me the uber-retard in your eyes. After all, there are tons of free resources to be found to learn these languages.

May I be a retarded man for a long time to come.

[Alamo]

[ QUOTE ]

Alamo,

You seem like a thinker. I feel like you could have chosen a better philosophical system to energize your despondent mind than PUA, of all things. Maybe thinking that makes me an [censored]!


[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, I am not so much into namecalling anyway. But see, there is something a bit flawed about your statement, see if you can appreciate the following;

You state I might have chosen better philosophical system to energize your despondent mind than PUA, of all things.

A few things, first of all this implies you are fully aware of what the whole PUA thing actually is about, while you are obviously not. This is not hating on you, I truly believe you have some serious misconceptions about the whole PUA thing, but I also have to give credit to the people that have told you you selectively ignore some counter-arguments.

To end your phrase with "of all things" is a dead give-away about your feelings towards the whole PUA movement. But I remain my stance that when one's information has serious ommissions (sp) and is flawed as a whole, the conclusion based upon these thoughts will automatically be flawed as well.

I have asked you various times already to reply to a previous post I made in this thread, a couple of pages back, about remaining true to your own convictions while applying some general PUA-traits to your life, yet you keep ignoring it. Shame really.

It saddens me to see that somebody that actually is able to convert his thoughts to some very interesting phrases on paper, which points towards having an actual brain and using it, will not be intellectually challenged to review his own convictions and see if they might be flawed.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
- Turning to the stuff about men / women / what happens when they get together: You guys are LOL. Take that blanket list of 'what the PUA knows' about women that DrewDevil posted earlier. That [censored] reads like a KKK pamphlet about the Nigra Menace - just a pastiche of exaggerated stereotypes. I'm sure the ladies could get together and scribble out something about as unflattering and about as fair. Many of them are half-truths or based on something real, like most stereotypes, but I've never known a woman who was all of them - an emotional / sexual masochist AND a nagging shrew who secretly wants to lose AND completely superficial AND completely illogical AND lacking all self-awareness, etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This paragraph is not only highly insulting but completely misstates and misrepresents everything I've posted in this thread. Congratulations.

I'm not sure you continuing to just "being yourself" is a good idea, because in this thread you come across as a know-it-all, pretentious nerd who's in love with the sound of his own typewriter keys.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

the word PUA, and the PUA community seems to be associated w/ more ideas and concepts besides the completely obvious trio of dress nice, be confident, be interesting. If this is where it ends for you, perhaps PUA isn't a good word to describe yourself. Maybe you guys can coin a new word, (Moral) MPUA.

[Aloysius]

Ana - you no I have no agenda wrt you. You seem like a nice guy. But you're really, really solipsistic in this thread.

I don't know much about PUA, and if anything based on random stuff I've read and watching an episode of that VH1 show, just seems like a bunch of guys who are bad with women learning how to be more confident. If anything I feel some sympathy for these guys, and if learning all these acronyms and techniques helps them to relax enough to successfully chat up a girl, that's fine.

The one thing they're doing though, which you don't seem to be at all, is considering what women want. It's very simple. This doesn't force a baseline character change to conform to a woman's desires, it's an awareness issue on a guy's part.

I think the bottom line here is that this whole thing is about you - I find this type of self-absorption to be vulgar and intellectually dishonest. If you can't see this you probably have some growing up to do.

-Al

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
the word PUA, and the PUA community seems to be associated w/ more ideas and concepts besides the completely obvious trio of dress nice, be confident, be interesting. If this is where it ends for you, perhaps PUA isn't a good word to describe yourself. Maybe you guys can coin a new word, (Moral) MPUA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that the notion/widespread belief that PUA is "immoral" is based on the fact that the guy is not "himself" when he approaches women, right? That he creates a "facade" (which Cardo "detests") or uses canned, rehearsed material, or flat out deceives or lies to his "target." Amirite?

I think the response to this is that guys are not 100% honest in their interactions with women NOW. Your average guy does not walk up to a girl he wants and say "I really want to have sex with you" or "I really want you to be my girlfriend" or whatever it is he wants.

And why not? Because he knows it doesn't work. Instead, he adopts a "facade" of the nice, friendly, non-threatening non-sexual guy, the bumbling nervous guy who manages to win the girl's heart in the movies by "being himself."

The PUA response is that THAT FACADE DOESN'T WORK EITHER. Nice non-threatening guy doesn't attract women.

So if being 100% non-facade and truthful doesn't work, and nice non-sexual guy doesn't work, then why not try something else? Confident, non-needy, interesting guy seems to work a lot better.

NO, it doesn't work on ALL women (as Cardo ridiculously points out, as if that invalidates PUA entirely). But it sure works better than 100% non-facade honesty, or nice non-threateningness.

MOST women like sex but want to have sex with men they are attracted to AND they don't want to be thought of as slutty either. So there are games that must be played, e.g., "Would you like to come upstairs for a cup of coffee?" Now, both parties know what that means. Does that make it immoral?

PUA is just an attempt to understand the way sexual interactions work and to understand that if there's a game to be played, it should be played well.