PDA

View Full Version : Books with life-changing qualities



baboon2004
07-04-2009, 01:43 AM
Maybe this should go in AL&F, but I am meaning books both fictional and non-fictional. Indeed, primarily the latter.

I am almost through Erich Fromm's 'The Art of Loving', and it is extraordinary in its disentanglement of a whole raft of presuppositions and 'feelings' that many of us have about the nature and practice of love. Quite possibly life-changing.

Although I'm sure it has its detractors, 'The Artist's Way' also fits into this category for me, if only for the innovation of the 'morning pages', quite possibly the best way to spend 20 minutes in the morning short of mind-blowing sex with the partner of one's dreams. Although hopefully that would last longer than 20 minutes.

zhao
07-04-2009, 10:10 AM
http://www.yessaid.com/pic/drama2.jpg

zhao
07-04-2009, 10:11 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WfUkkzprTKM/SAjuDS6TXaI/AAAAAAAAAXc/0kPMLxXzgL0/s320/TibetanDying.jpg

baboon2004
07-04-2009, 10:21 AM
http://www.yessaid.com/pic/drama2.jpg

I think my friend was telling me about this. Is one of her dictums that forgiving someone (a parent, possibly) for what they've done is not the right way to heal emotional wounds, contrary to so much contemporary Western teaching?

subvert47
07-04-2009, 10:27 AM
Books with life-changing qualities

...are whatever is most relevant to you personally


for me that was probably this:

http://www.beacon.org/client/Products/ProdimageLg/7941.jpg


for one of my mates it was this:

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/13690000/13696402.JPG


:)

Pestario
07-04-2009, 10:34 AM
Although I'm sure it has its detractors, 'The Artist's Way' also fits into this category for me, if only for the innovation of the 'morning pages', quite possibly the best way to spend 20 minutes in the morning short of mind-blowing sex with the partner of one's dreams. Although hopefully that would last longer than 20 minutes.

Yep, it's great. The only book that has changed my life in a concrete way (although I've stopped doing the morning pages).

The Alchemist had an effect on me, but I'm not sure if it really changed my life. Just a great affirming read.

sufi
07-04-2009, 11:06 AM
http://i.ebayimg.com/18/!BOzWCzwBGk~$(KGrHgoOKisEjlLl5Pu2BJwieYPLjg~~_1.JP G
useless 70's hype
and i still don't even know how to fix a motorbike

sufi
07-04-2009, 11:16 AM
http://large.snazal.com/?0006544894
& still don't know much about physics either

Mr BoShambles
07-04-2009, 11:44 AM
Not read that one Sufi but this:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q7GGRBBTL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

I am really enjoying. He basically synthesises recent scientific breakthroughs in complexity, chaos, microbiology etc. and shows how these challenge the conventional mechanical view of the world bequeathed to us by the likes of Newton and Descartes. It has massive implications for the way we understand the world around us and for our abilities to build ecologically sound communities for the future!

Mr. Tea
07-04-2009, 12:00 PM
http://www.avclub.com/assets/images/articles/article/2535/Real-Ultimate-Power.jpg

zhao
07-04-2009, 12:04 PM
I think my friend was telling me about this. Is one of her dictums that forgiving someone (a parent, possibly) for what they've done is not the right way to heal emotional wounds, contrary to so much contemporary Western teaching?

i've only read 1/3 of it. so don't know the answer to that... big issue with me so i need to finish it and find out what she says about it.

baboon2004
07-04-2009, 12:06 PM
...are whatever is most relevant to you personally


for me that was probably this:

http://www.beacon.org/client/Products/ProdimageLg/7941.jpg


for one of my mates it was this:

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/13690000/13696402.JPG


:)

Fair point.

As for the Strauss, 'negging' has become a key slang-word in conversations with one of my friends (he's read it, I haven't).

And (sadly?) it is actually quite a workable concept, given most people's shaky sense of self-esteem (especially if covered over with bravado).

Sick Boy
07-04-2009, 01:44 PM
This will likely be scoffed at, but being in my early twenties if I am completely honest the following two books are the only ones so far that I can say have really "changed" anything for me in a direction altering way. This, and the fact they might be construed as cliché options, is because I read them as a teenager. The impact of what poisons you when you are young is not to be understated in my opinion.


http://mukikamu.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/n244301.jpg

^^^ Put the sheer hellbent wonder in me

http://www.ebooknetworking.com/books/067/972/big0679725164.jpg

^^^ Put the fear in me

Re: "The Game"
I know people who love this book too. It should really be re-titled "How To Get Your Ass Kicked Very Quickly" though if you've ever seen anyone put its teachings into practice.

Tentative Andy
07-04-2009, 02:55 PM
Oh crap, there are many that spring to mind. Will try and stick to ones that were genuinely life-changing, in terms of altering my thought and/or behaviour in noticeable ways, rather than just sucumbing to the temptation to list my favourite books. In no particular order:

Thomas Nagel - Mortal Questions
Lewis Grassic Gibbon - A Scots Quair
Simon Reynolds - Energy Flash
Ian Carr - Miles Davis: A Biography (sounds a weird choice, but you'd get it if you read it)
Alan Warner - Morvern Callar, The Sopranos
Michel Foucault - Discipline and Punish
Alasdair Gray - Lanark
JJP Smart & Bernard Williams - Utilitarianism: For and Against
Roland Barthes - Mythologies
James Joyce - Portrait of the Artist
Jonathan Culler - Structuralist Poetics, On Deconstruction (might only have life-changing properties for literature students I guess)
Terry Eagleton - Ideology: An Introduction
Joseph Heller - Catch-22 (which may prove Sick Boy's point. But hey, don't be ashamed of your choices, they're great)
Also, even though I only really scanned it, Maurice Merleu-Ponty - The Phenomenology of Perception def had a big impact. Should go back to it properly soon.
That'll do for now...

martin
07-04-2009, 03:14 PM
"The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" - though be careful what you take from this, it can lead to a lot of liver damage.

Tanadan
07-04-2009, 03:25 PM
The impact of what poisons you when you are young is not to be understated in my opinion.

I believe in dis very much.

IdleRich
07-04-2009, 04:21 PM
"The Alchemist had an effect on me, but I'm not sure if it really changed my life. Just a great affirming read."
By Paulo Coelho? Surely not. I thought that was the worst book I'd ever had the misfortune to be tricked into reading. I actually felt insulted that someone had the temerity to splurge that kind of bilge on to paper and then ask people for money in exhange. And I felt physically sick that it seemed to be working.

craner
07-04-2009, 04:24 PM
http://www.ebooknetworking.com/books/067/165/big0671657151.jpg

baboon2004
07-04-2009, 04:32 PM
By Paulo Coelho? Surely not. I thought that was the worst book I'd ever had the misfortune to be tricked into reading. I actually felt insulted that someone had the temerity to splurge that kind of bilge on to paper and then ask people for money in exhange. And I felt physically sick that it seemed to be working.

Not read it. Is it as bad as Martin Amis (the fictional stuff - very good journalist back in the day) or Salman Rushdie? Tricksters of the highest order.

Edit: add Houllebecq's 'Atomised' to that list - what the FUCK was that meant to be about? Pretentious bilge.

Edit two: that list could stretch out all day, actually - feted authors who are all style and zero substance.

crackerjack
07-04-2009, 04:35 PM
Not read it. Is it as bad as Martin Amis (the fictional stuff - very good journalist back in the day) or Salman Rushdie? Tricksters of the highest order.

You can't dis Money - really, you can't. It's not his fault it was the starting point for a thousand lesser talents

STN
07-04-2009, 04:39 PM
I've not read Money, but Other People and London Fields were utterly embarrassing.

My life-changer: John Cowper Powys's novel, Wolf Solent.

IdleRich
07-04-2009, 04:39 PM
It's much worse than any of those authors (all of whom I actually like to a greater or lesser degree).

STN
07-04-2009, 04:40 PM
I thought Atomized was okay, but it seemed to be successful because of that turn-of-the-century error of conflating obnoxiousness with honesty.

baboon2004
07-04-2009, 04:40 PM
Simon Reynolds - Energy Flash
Joseph Heller - Catch-22 (which may prove Sick Boy's point. But hey, don't be ashamed of your choices, they're great)


Tick and tick. Thanks for all the other suggestions too - have been meaning to check out Barthes (not Fabian (-z) - I bet his books would be rubbish) for ages.

As for Catch-22, why would anyone be ashamed? A book the first chapter of which is still side-splittingly funny 56 years after it was written is a rare commodity indeed. Samuel Shem's 'House of God'(?) seems good, but such a rip-off of Heller.

OK, I'll add:

Dan Rhodes - Anthropology' (solidified my love for literary brevity beyond the point of return)

baboon2004
07-04-2009, 04:42 PM
I've not read Money, but Other People and London Fields were utterly embarrassing.


Likewise. Couldn't be arsed after reading 'LF' - life's too short.

baboon2004
07-04-2009, 04:44 PM
I thought Atomized was okay, but it seemed to be successful because of that turn-of-the-century error of conflating obnoxiousness with honesty.

I'd go with that.

He pandered to all the stupid broadsheet critics by creating a novel with 'Big Ideas' - it was embarrassing to see people praise it so much, once one had actually read it.

I liked his first one though. A simple yet pertinent point, well made.

crackerjack
07-04-2009, 04:48 PM
I still have a Houllebecq lying unread, at least six years since I bought it. The curse of 3 for 2 strikes again. It's very thin, though, so shitness wouldn't be a massive problem.

Sick Boy
07-04-2009, 04:50 PM
i've only read 1/3 of it. so don't know the answer to that... big issue with me so i need to finish it and find out what she says about it.

A book you only read a third of changed your life? You couldn't have liked it that much then!

STN
07-04-2009, 04:50 PM
plus the cover's a bit saucy.

edit: i mean of Atomised.

baboon2004
07-04-2009, 05:25 PM
I still have a Houllebecq lying unread, at least six years since I bought it. The curse of 3 for 2 strikes again. It's very thin, though, so shitness wouldn't be a massive problem.

Probably the first one then. Worth a read, I think.

empty mirror
07-04-2009, 05:34 PM
for me:
thus spake zarathustra
myth of sisyphus


those two books altered my world view more than any other influence in my life, i reckon.

Tentative Andy
07-04-2009, 05:39 PM
Tick and tick. Thanks for all the other suggestions too - have been meaning to check out Barthes (not Fabian (-z) - I bet his books would be rubbish) for ages.

As for Catch-22, why would anyone be ashamed? A book the first chapter of which is still side-splittingly funny 56 years after it was written is a rare commodity indeed.

Well I certainly wouldn't be ashamed of it, and neither would I suggest to anyone else that they should be. But my comment was just in reference to it being one of the classic 'teenage revelation' books that Sick Boy was alluding to. See also: Catcher In The Rye, which personally I wasn't too keen on, but am prepared to acknowledge is me being totally and utterly wrong, having had many people whose literary tastes I respect gush praise to me about it over the years. Oh, and anything by Camus (who I think is great, esp The Plague).

woops
08-04-2009, 12:13 AM
have been meaning to check out Barthes (not Fabian (-z) - I bet his books would be rubbish) for ages.


surely you know camus played in goal for algiers? and i'd be all over any book by cantona

luka
08-04-2009, 01:09 AM
im always baffled by this sort of thing. ive never read a book that came remotely close to changing my life. i forget them a couple of days after i finish them.

Ness Rowlah
08-04-2009, 01:49 AM
Not sure about life-changing, but if we are talking about impact on me as an individual,

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KE4KB3T8L._SS500_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KPPZ0D8WL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41FE8NBJ8JL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

baboon2004
08-04-2009, 09:59 AM
surely you know camus played in goal for algiers? and i'd be all over any book by cantona

Oh, absolutely! But I was never that convinced by Barthez's interesting qualities. Naturally leads to a which-football-players'-books-would-you-like-to-read? type question. For me:

Grobelaar, Zidane, Robbie Savage.

crackerjack
08-04-2009, 10:06 AM
Robbie Savage.

I'd be interested to read a book about Robbie Savage, but not by him. He strikes me as a man of zero self-awareness.

Pestario
08-04-2009, 10:09 AM
By Paulo Coelho? Surely not. I thought that was the worst book I'd ever had the misfortune to be tricked into reading. I actually felt insulted that someone had the temerity to splurge that kind of bilge on to paper and then ask people for money in exhange. And I felt physically sick that it seemed to be working.

Ok yes, it is soppy and reads more like an extended horoscope but I read it at a point in my life where I was in the middle of leaving everything behind to move to a new country. I was basically freaking out about it but this book reassured me that it was the right thing to do.

Another book I just remembered, The Long Emergency by J H Kunstler. I read it during uni and it was instrumental in turning me into a car hating, anti-suburbia, petro-fascist.

crackerjack
08-04-2009, 10:58 AM
Ok yes, it is soppy and reads more like an extended horoscope but I read it at a point in my life where I was in the middle of leaving everything behind to move to a new country. I was basically freaking out about it but this book reassured me that it was the right thing to do.

Was it?

Pestario
08-04-2009, 11:48 AM
so far yes

Sick Boy
08-04-2009, 02:07 PM
im always baffled by this sort of thing. ive never read a book that came remotely close to changing my life. i forget them a couple of days after i finish them.

You lie.

slim jenkins
08-04-2009, 03:54 PM
Can't think of a book that's changed my life. A good dictionary and the London A-Z have proved essential, though. I'm very post-modern in this respect. :D

baboon2004
08-04-2009, 04:08 PM
I'd be interested to read a book about Robbie Savage, but not by him. He strikes me as a man of zero self-awareness.

Which is why it would be hilarious.

baboon2004
08-04-2009, 04:09 PM
I can't say that many books have changed my life either, which I suppose is why I started this thread. There have been a handful however that have altered the way I think about things.

viktorvaughn
11-04-2009, 03:58 PM
the alchemist is the most appalling cod-philosophical airport level drivel.

swears
11-04-2009, 06:16 PM
Fair point.

As for the Strauss, 'negging' has become a key slang-word in conversations with one of my friends (he's read it, I haven't).

And (sadly?) it is actually quite a workable concept, given most people's shaky sense of self-esteem (especially if covered over with bravado).

Jesus christ, I hate all that pick-up expert bullshit. Every meathead fuckwit I know is into it. If you're good looking/tall/funny/cool you're going to find it easy to sleep around, otherwise forget about it. What a racket.

swears
11-04-2009, 06:20 PM
I know it sounds corny, but probably 1984. I read it thinking it was a straight-ahead sci-fi novel when I was 12, and it introduced me to a lot of philosophical and political ideas for the first time.

subvert47
11-04-2009, 10:14 PM
Jesus christ, I hate all that pick-up expert bullshit. Every meathead fuckwit I know is into it. If you're good looking/tall/funny/cool you're going to find it easy to sleep around, otherwise forget about it. What a racket.

It won't work for meathead fuckwits because they're following the game, not staying ahead of it. But it really did change my mate's life for a while: from being a total wuss, to getting off with any girl in the place. Until he got bored of it anyway.

viktorvaughn
12-04-2009, 12:14 AM
Likewise. Couldn't be arsed after reading 'LF' - life's too short.

i must admit...

i have read money, rachel papers, london fields (twice ha!) and a couple of others i can't remember names of and enjoyed them... {ok yellow dog is quite shit}

sure LF is over ripe, 100 pages too long and a bit silly from time to time but i'd take it over mr mediocre ian mcewan. Amis is like Rushdie to me - get into their style and used to the rules of their game and revel in their silly posturing!:)

Dunninger
12-04-2009, 10:03 AM
It won't work for meathead fuckwits because they're following the game, not staying ahead of it. But it really did change my mate's life for a while: from being a total wuss, to getting off with any girl in the place. Until he got bored of it anyway.

I haven't read the book, only had a look at various web sites that deal with pick up artistry through NLP etc. and I found that it all reeks of a severe lack of dignity and respect for the woman these "artists" want to pick up and (maybe even more) for themselves.

subvert47
12-04-2009, 02:55 PM
I found that it all reeks of a severe lack of dignity and respect for the woman these "artists" want to pick up

that's certainly true, yes

Tentative Andy
12-04-2009, 05:45 PM
So I started re-reading Catch 22 last night. It's still great. :)
I'm wondering if reading it at an impressionable age helped contribute to my borderline irrational antagonism towards the military.

Agent Nucleus
14-04-2009, 12:48 AM
Spiral Dynamics (http://www.spiraldynamics.net/)

it gives you the tools.

comelately
15-04-2009, 04:59 PM
It won't work for meathead fuckwits because they're following the game, not staying ahead of it. But it really did change my mate's life for a while: from being a total wuss, to getting off with any girl in the place. Until he got bored of it anyway.

It's absoloutely mindblowing finding out how easy it is to actually kiss girls.

One of my best mates was the sad, speccy git who couldn't get a girlfriend from some C4 documentary about "The Game". He has a girlfriend now, she's pretty cute too. He gots tons of free advice and help from many top guys, before and after the TV show. There are money and status games being played, but it's only 1 part of the community not the whole thing.

I dabbled in this area myself. Usually leading me to dating foreign girls who needed showing around London and to be fucked by a local. Without that Pester Square Posse, a lot of foreign girls would have shit times in London. As a result, got a couple of free holidays later on and spent New Year 07/08 in one of the poshest sex clubs in Europe. Got my heartbroken and other stuff too, but that's okay.

Clearly there are respect issues within the community, are they really any different to the ones you find everywhere else? Most relationships are not that healthy and a lot of sex is driven by esteem issues and maniplulation. To the extent there's anything special going on in the 'pick-up community', then surely it's men trying to work out what the hell they're supposed to be doing with their lives in a 'post-feminist' world where the rules are increasingly unclear. It might be nice if that was a dialogue girls could be more actively included in, but like everything else it's a work in progress.

On another note, was Jarvis Cocker the/a prototype 'Mystery' figure? The lyrics to 'I Spy' from Different Class, in particular, are very interesting in this context. Pulp were supposed to be quite the girlfriend-stealers too.

IdleRich
15-04-2009, 05:13 PM
"It's absoloutely mindblowing finding out how easy it is to actually kiss girls."
Especially if you are stronger and faster than them.

DannyL
15-04-2009, 05:55 PM
Clearly there are respect issues within the community, are they really any different to the ones you find everywhere else?

Yes they are - the issues are a lot more "intense" as the sole focus is on women as objects to be manipulated so you can fuck them.


Most relationships are not that healthy and a lot of sex is driven by esteem issues and maniplulation.

Not true in my experience. If we are allowed to generalise about "most relationships", I could say that "most relationships" at least have the aspiration to something healthy - relationships which are driven by manipulation by definition fall outside this category. category.


To the extent there's anything special going on in the 'pick-up community', then surely it's men trying to work out what the hell they're supposed to be doing with their lives in a 'post-feminist' world where the rules are increasingly unclear.

I hate discussions about "men's role in the world which transfer male disatifactions and inadequacy back onto women and feminism. IMO, feminims is a boon for men, because it increases the status, respect and political consciousness of our partners. How is that not a good thing?


t might be nice if that was a dialogue girls could be more actively included in, but like everything else it's a work in progress.

Golly it's strange that women don't want to get involved in that dialogue. I wonder why ever not?

DannyL
15-04-2009, 05:59 PM
"It's absoloutely mindblowing finding out how easy it is to actually kiss girls."

Like it's some fucking big mystery anyhow, that needs a special technique to "crack". Christ on a bike.

Sick Boy
15-04-2009, 07:02 PM
I dabbled in this area myself. Usually leading me to dating foreign girls who needed showing around London and to be fucked by a local. Without that Pester Square Posse, a lot of foreign girls would have shit times in London. As a result, got a couple of free holidays later on and spent New Year 07/08 in one of the poshest sex clubs in Europe. Got my heartbroken and other stuff too, but that's okay.


Would your name happen to be Neal Cassady?

Mr. Tea
15-04-2009, 07:29 PM
Something I think feminism should have done, but perhaps hasn't done to the extent that it might, is made women more willing to make the first move when it comes to pulling. It's not always the case, but in general I find it is usually left up to the man to be an active seeker-after-sex and for the woman to be passively sought. Well, maybe she puts out 'signals' but it's generally up to the man to go over and say something.
The traditional answer here is that old-fashioned sexist attitudes are to blame by making the woman a 'slut' if she puts out 'too easily', but is this really the case? I think most men would be delighted if more women were willing to make the first move. Perhaps there are still some idiots who still think this is disgraceful (religious conservatives, maybe) or, worse, hypocrites who'll shag a girl and then go on about what a slag she was for letting him do it. But I'd have thought such men would be in the minority, and a shrinking minority at that.



I hate discussions about "men's role in the world which transfer male disatifactions and inadequacy back onto women and feminism. IMO, feminims is a boon for men, because it increases the status, respect and political consciousness of our partners. How is that not a good thing?

Sure, but is 'feminism', as the force or process that's been active in society over the last couple of generations, a particularly good facsimile of feminism as it was originally ideated in the 60s/70s?* Which is to say, isn't at least possible that men (and women as well) have become confused because feminism has to some degree been hijacked by consumerism, filtered through various layers of pop culture, academised to within an inch of its life and gone through all kinds of other mutations? Would Andrea Dworkin have approved of Sex And The City I wonder...probably not, one suspects. Some of the culture theory buffs on here could take this discussion to a whole other level if they like, I'm just typing as I think.

*which of course in turn owes a lot to the first wave of modern feminism in the early 20th century, but AFAIK that was more about concrete things like suffrage and having career options other than housewife/nurse/servant/prostitute.

DannyL
15-04-2009, 07:43 PM
Mr Tea., feminism obviously is a whole bunch of different things, but I was responding to the assumption in thread that this nebulous force was somehow responsible for the ills of modern man. It's an assumption that crops up a lot in these discussions, y'know "modern man=NEUTERED BY FEMINAZIS" and I think it's a fallacious load of reactionary bollocks.

Mr. Tea
15-04-2009, 07:54 PM
Mr Tea., feminism obviously is a whole bunch of different things, but I was responding to the assumption in thread that this nebulous force was somehow responsible for the ills of modern man. It's an assumption that crops up a lot in these discussions, y'know "modern man=NEUTERED BY FEMINAZIS" and I think it's a fallacious load of reactionary bollocks.

Agreed, totally, but comelately said men were confused about how they should act, which is not quite the same thing as being "neutered". On the whole I think sex has probably got better for both men and women since feminism.

And if some men don't know what to do because they're stuck in the past and have a lot of daft outdated sexist ideas, it is of course good that they're confused, because if they weren't it would mean nothing had changed in any substantial way.

DannyL
15-04-2009, 08:20 PM
Agreed, totally, but comelately said men were confused about how they should act, which is not quite the same thing as being "neutered". On the whole I think sex has probably got better for both men and women since feminism.

And if some men don't know what to do because they're stuck in the past and have a lot of daft outdated sexist ideas, it is of course good that they're confused, because if they weren't it would mean nothing had changed in any substantial way.

Yeah, I was aware he didn't say that, I suppose I was parodying the kind of discussion/"critiques" of feminism that I've seen elsewhere. Pre-emptively really, in case wasisface started trotting them out. I agree with you also that sex has probably changed for the better with the advent of feminism. I"m puzzled by any claim to the contrary. If you just focus on one issue - say, reproductive rights - it's pretty clear to me that feminist campaigning has improved the situation immeasurably for both men and women.

DannyL
15-04-2009, 08:23 PM
Clearer articulation of what I wanted to say earlier.



Clearly there are respect issues within the community, are they really any different to the ones you find everywhere else? Most relationships are not that healthy and a lot of sex is driven by esteem issues and maniplulation.
.

Even if I accepted that as true (which I don't) why then work with a "system" that seems to reproduce the worst aspects of bad relationships rather than something that transcends them?

comelately
15-04-2009, 09:12 PM
Yes they are - the issues are a lot more "intense" as the sole focus is on women as objects to be manipulated so you can fuck them.

Where and if that actually is the case, then yes the issues are more intense. But you're basically putting the worst spin on a pretty ridiculous stereotype.



I could say that "most relationships" at least have the aspiration to something healthy - relationships which are driven by manipulation by definition fall outside this category. category.

Again, massive strawman. Bad apples. Neil Strauss is a bad apple. If you actually read the book, you'll get some idea exactly how not good Mystery is at manipulating people.


I hate discussions about "men's role in the world which transfer male disatifactions and inadequacy back onto women and feminism. IMO, feminims is a boon for men, because it increases the status, respect and political consciousness of our partners. How is that not a good thing?

I absolutely agree on the last part. But the community always seemed moe focused on self-improvement than moaning. I learnt how to help women to squirt and have extended orgasms because of 'the community' and gave quite a few of both.


Golly it's strange that women don't want to get involved in that dialogue. I wonder why ever not?

There are women involved to a point. It's a work in progress. Women know about "The Game" - If 'nice, sweet' guys learn to 'push the initial buttons', most of them are cool with that. What's wrong with that exactly?

DannyL
15-04-2009, 09:41 PM
But you're basically putting the worst spin on a pretty ridiculous stereotype.

But this spin is pretty much caused by my reading about the book - I haven't read it, because I found what I read pretty appalling. Can you explain to me how this stuff is not true? Surely to "manipulate women into fucking you" this is the whole promise and premise of the rules and strategy that Strauss follows?

DannyL
15-04-2009, 09:57 PM
I'd forgotten - the only time I'd got any closer to this sort of thing was reading a website about it, a forum where guys were comparing notes and strategies. It was quite a while ago now, so I can't remember where it was but it precisely conformed the my stereotypes - sexist jerks hunting for trophy sex. If this is not the case, tell me how it is.

There was a review of Strauss's book in one of the UK Broadsheets where it said "This is the story of a love affair... the love affair is of course between the men". This was very much my impression on reading this site - they seemed to be trying to screw women as much to impress each other/ego than for any inherent pleasure in the act, or relating to a women.

Mr. Tea
15-04-2009, 10:17 PM
I learnt how to help women to squirt

This is the best phrase ever posted on Dissensus.

swears
15-04-2009, 10:33 PM
Look, if you're not as cool and handsome as Fred Durst, then you're never going to sleep with all these women, book or no book.

comelately
15-04-2009, 10:54 PM
Even if I accepted that as true (which I don't) why then work with a "system" that seems to reproduce the worst aspects of bad relationships rather than something that transcends them?

What would that be? A lot of people in the community are into reading David Deida "Way of the Superior Man" and stuff like that, there is interest in 'enlightened relationships' though ideas what constitutes such a relationship would no doubt differ. Find a 'pick-up' torrent site and it's full of yoga videos. But often we're talking about people who have not had a relationship, or maybe, like me at the time, they've been in a relationship for a while and don't necessarily want another one right away.

The thing about the book is that it's written from the POV of Neil Strauss. Neil Strauss is a complete douchebag and probably a massive liar. He apparently actually struggles to approach women and currently has a reputation for picking up where other 'mPUAS' have left off. He is your stereotype I guess. But look, he was a fucking press whore in LA - he's not a fair stereotype of anyone. Most of the characters in the book went on to have basically normal relationships, just not Neil.

Even though you will see some bizarre talk on forums, I think this is mostly bravado and an inability to find the right language to express things - I really think that it rarely truly represents the true feelings of the speaker. As others have suggested, the game has moved on and although there will always be silly guys with silly lines that pull silly girls, it's about a lot of other stuff now. There is broham/bromance obviously, nothing wrong with that.

What it comes down to, I suppose, is that one man's manipulation is another man's influence is another man's seducation is another man's suggestion is another man's coercion is another man's leading. Also, to what extent does awareness that one is playing a game entail a duty to not play it? What if the woman knows she is playing a game? What if she wants to play? What if she wants, in effect, to be manipulated?

To answer the bit about Strauss' strategy. The answer is you are right if you have 'manipulative material' to take you all the way through the 'M3 model' and you somehow actually do this. I just don't believe many people do this, or have done it. I think it's probably much more accurate and reflective to say that such an approach was used to get girls to give them a proper shot.

Just as a final point - just because some guy brags about a shag, doesn't mean he didn't enjoy it at the time or that he's not desperately hoping the girl replies to those two texts he sent because he actually really liked her.

Edit: I just realised I made a mistake in an earler post where I said Strauss couldn't actually manipulate people very well - I meant Mystery.

padraig (u.s.)
15-04-2009, 11:49 PM
What it comes down to, I suppose, is that one man's manipulation is another man's influence is another man's seducation is another man's suggestion is another man's coercion is another man's leading.

one man's mysogynistic bullshit is another man's creepy mindgames is another man's unwelcome pressure is another man's predatory tactics is another man's childish nonsense is another man's pitiful justifications for grotesque behavior.


Also, to what extent does awareness that one is playing a game entail a duty to not play it? What if the woman knows she is playing a game? What if she wants to play? What if she wants, in effect, to be manipulated?

I dunno, certainly, yunno, a basic respect for people you're trying to sleep with is probably a decent baseline to start from. what qualifies you, exactly, to decide that a woman "wants, in effect, to be manipulated"? she said no, but in effect she meant yes.


Just as a final point - just because some guy brags about a shag, doesn't mean he didn't enjoy it at the time or that he's not desperately hoping the girl replies to those two texts he sent because he actually really liked her.

no, it's just means there's like a 99% he's a jerk:rolleyes:. jesus christ, grow up...

& more generally - dude, are you for real? tho of course I was glad to hear of your prowess at "giving longer orgasms" & "teaching women to squirt". it's quite coincidental as I actually invented to a new form of orgasm where women shoot laser beams out of their eyes when they cum.

comelately
16-04-2009, 12:26 AM
That's really funny. Who said anything about no meaning yes? Laser beams? Grow up you say?

scottdisco
16-04-2009, 12:42 AM
Limp Bizkit committee

down in Kansas City

oh Nomad, i miss you.

Mr. Tea
16-04-2009, 12:47 AM
she said no, but in effect she meant yes.


I agree that the book and this whole culture - the guy keeps saying 'community' which really makes me laugh, makes them sound like Rotarians or Scientologists or something - sounds a lot like an instruction manual in how to be a sleazy prick...but that's not (necessarily) the same thing as being a rapist. (Which, for one thing, presumably obviates the need for any kind of 'seduction' technique at all.)

Tentative Andy
16-04-2009, 12:52 AM
Umm, would it be appropriate to mention here that my former tutor's new novel is based around this sort of thing?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41b7DizspPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

*giant plug drops from ceiling*

padraig (u.s.)
16-04-2009, 01:29 AM
That's really funny. Who said anything about no meaning yes? Laser beams? Grow up you say?

glad you enjoyed it mate. of course anyone feels the need to go on a message board & brag about his orgasm-giving prowess & his romps at exclusive sex clubs with hot foreigners is to be taken at face value.

your whole line is one vast, utterly creepy slippery slope, beginning with the premise of objectifying women as objects which are to be pursued & captured, rather than as people. I also find your references to a "community" to be laughable, or perhaps sad as it's merely another example of how meaningless the word "community" has become.

and you're goddamn right grow up. perhaps if more dudes in your "community" could act like adults they wouldn't need to resort to this sort of loathsome nonsense to engage with women.

padraig (u.s.)
16-04-2009, 01:49 AM
I agree that the book and this whole culture - the guy keeps saying 'community' which really makes me laugh, makes them sound like Rotarians or Scientologists or something - sounds a lot like an instruction manual in how to be a sleazy prick...but that's not (necessarily) the same thing as being a rapist. (Which, for one thing, presumably obviates the need for any kind of 'seduction' technique at all.)

you're right but:

Being a sleazy prick, or in this case inculcating an entire culture of being a sleazy prick, is rather conducive to sexual assault or harassment or just to treating women like shite. That's not to say that everyone in this "community" is a predator - I'm sure there are indeed some guys in there with genuine social issues. Rather that any culture that dehumanizes people makes it easier to mistreat them & furthermore that this culture, with its emphasis on manipulation, on closing the deal & adding notches to your belt, is practically guaranteed to foster an environment where sexual assault, or at least shitty behavior, is more likely.

Also why should we have to suffer sleazy pricks without calling them out for what they are?

comelately
16-04-2009, 08:34 AM
glad you enjoyed it mate. of course anyone feels the need to go on a message board & brag about his orgasm-giving prowess & his romps at exclusive sex clubs with hot foreigners is to be taken at face value.

You assume it was bragging but I was simply making a point about self-improvement. If you want to think that I'm bullshitting then that's fine but most women will take 'he's really good in bed' over 'he defends the honour of womankind on messageboards'.

We got into the sex club because my ladyfriend's parents are members.


your whole line is one vast, utterly creepy slippery slope,

Argument by assertion, slippery slope metaphor completely clumsy and misleading in this context. Go fuck yourself basically.

The idea that *everyone else* is living in some kind of relationship Aqe of Aquarius is hilarious and the concept that 'pick-up artists' are somehow dragging the world down is massively overprivileging how people actually live and think in the world today. PUAs didn't invent nightclubs or celebrity culture - they just live in that world, some with a very low degree of alienation which to a certain extent even disturbs me. But I don't jump from a slightly icky feeling in the stomach to making all sorts of ridiculous assertions.


beginning with the premise of objectifying women as objects which are to be pursued & captured, rather than as people.

No. And fuck you. There's something much more complex going on, but you're cleary incapable of acting sensibly so what's the point?


I also find your references to a "community" to be laughable, or perhaps sad as it's merely another example of how meaningless the word "community" has become.

Or maybe if you keep using terms like 'creepy' and 'sad', you might feel better about yourself. Or not, as is actually more likely.


perhaps if more dudes in your "community" could act like adults they wouldn't need to resort to this sort of loathsome nonsense to engage with women.

I think that's largely what happens anyway, and that's the point.

comelately
16-04-2009, 08:43 AM
I'm sure there are indeed some guys in there with genuine social issues.

There are also guys who like pulling and thus choose to party with guys who are also quite focused on this aspect of clubbing. Is that a social issue? Or just a preference? When did you guys turn so conservative? Was Leicester Square full of shamanic dance spaces prior to 2003?

Not one of you would dare make similar comments about gay nightclubs.

DannyL
16-04-2009, 09:25 AM
I think people are a bit confused rather than conservative. "We" (speechmarks to indicate we're not all coming from the same place) have only heard of the concept of "pick up artists" through an awareness of Strauss's book - and as you said yourself he's a douchebag and a liar. Most of us have no contact or awareness of the "pick-up community" - beyond me, I think (as I said, this thread reminded me that I'd read a discussion a few years ago that confirmed my preconceptions).

You're in effect saying, you're right in your assumptions (re. Strauss) but there is a "community" out there (which isn't named or linked to) that is in some sense "progressive", for want of a better word, or at least not full of arseholes like Strauss. Anything positive about this body of of techniques is referred to this community which none of us have seen. I'm not saying this isn't true, but I find it easier to believe in internet communities full of creepy sexist jerks due to well, shit always rolls downhill and it would seem to take a lot of energy to create something a bit more interesting.

I'll reply to your other points later.

DannyL
16-04-2009, 09:35 AM
Google threw up this:

http://forums.becomingapua.com/index.php

padraig (u.s.)
16-04-2009, 11:50 AM
You assume it was bragging but I was simply making a point about self-improvement.

oh yes clearly that's the logical assumption to have made. so many people go around talking about how fantastic they are in bed in order to make points about self-improvement.


The idea that *everyone else* is living in some kind of relationship Aqe of Aquarius is hilarious and the concept that 'pick-up artists' are somehow dragging the world down is massively overprivileging how people actually live and think in the world today. PUAs didn't invent nightclubs or celebrity culture - they just live in that world, some with a very low degree of alienation which to a certain extent even disturbs me. But I don't jump from a slightly icky feeling in the stomach to making all sorts of ridiculous assertions.

no one but you has expressed that idea. it is a strawman. nor do I blame anyone for the waters in which they swim. on the other hand it's absurd to say "look, this is grotesque - but I didn't create it - I just take advantage of it".

also, there's nothing new about self-proclaimed "pick-up artists"; it's merely the same old same old, a bunch of skeezy dudes trying to figure out more efficient ways to scam on chicks, dressed up with silly acronyms & terminology.


No. And fuck you. There's something much more complex going on, but you're cleary incapable of acting sensibly so what's the point?

ouch. a bit touchy aren't we? right, something more complex than dudes trying to get laid. & what might that be? don't pull a copout like "what's the point". surely even if I'm too daft and/or insensible to suss it out there are other people who'd love to hear you explain exactly what that much more complex something is?


Or maybe if you keep using terms like 'creepy' and 'sad', you might feel better about yourself. Or not, as is actually more likely.

ah clever one man, casting aspersions on my self-esteem & all. perhaps tho it would be simpler if you could just explain why terms like "creepy" & "sad", especially the latter, are inaccurate?

padraig (u.s.)
16-04-2009, 12:05 PM
There are also guys who like pulling and thus choose to party with guys who are also quite focused on this aspect of clubbing. Is that a social issue? Or just a preference? When did you guys turn so conservative? Was Leicester Square full of shamanic dance spaces prior to 2003?

Not one of you would dare make similar comments about gay nightclubs.

no way. don't try to make this about prudishness or some kind of PC Puritanism. the issue isn't promiscuity or sex clubs or whatever, it's how people treat each other. & that you try to equate being (or trying to be) a "pick-up artist" with sexual preference is ridiculous & mildly offensive.

anyway if there is some wonderful, idyllic community of "pick-up artists" out there then why don't you, as DannyL suggested, toss out some links? I very much doubt it but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

DannyL
16-04-2009, 12:38 PM
there's nothing new about self-proclaimed "pick-up artists"; it's merely the same old same old, a bunch of skeezy dudes trying to figure out more efficient ways to scam on chicks, dressed up with silly acronyms & terminology

This is kind of what I felt like after reading that site above. A couple of interesting insights, a lot of quite bad pop-psychology and loads of stating the obvious dressed up as something new. i.e go up and talk to women, be relaxed. Couldn't help but think it reinforces a basic sexism.

DannyL
16-04-2009, 12:56 PM
The more I read of this stuff the more I agree with what Padraig wrote above - I just found a video of two dickheads talking about a girl in a college library as "the target" as one got him self ready to apprach her. How do you think she'd feel if she knew she was being videoed? Seems to me to create the same predatory mentality that ends up in rape and sexual assault.

DannyL
16-04-2009, 12:58 PM
Some guys are apparently wearing fedora hats though, it's called "peacocking". Next time I see a guy with one on, I'll ask him if that's what he's doing.

DannyL
16-04-2009, 01:12 PM
Even though you will see some bizarre talk on forums, I think this is mostly bravado and an inability to find the right language to express things - I really think that it rarely truly represents the true feelings of the speaker.

That’s just putting a sympathetic spin on a misogyny surely. They were bragging about sex to other guys on the internet but “they really didn’t mean it” - come on. Guys in male company will often encourage each other into excesses of all sorts. That’s why I find the whole PUA thing really creepy – what the fuck are you going to learn from another guy, especially when it’s put in the context of learning to be a “pick up artist”


Also, to what extent does awareness that one is playing a game entail a duty to not play it? What if the woman knows she is playing a game? What if she wants to play? What if she wants, in effect, to be manipulated?

But what if she doesn’t? Using all these bullshit techniques is entirely predicated on someone not knowing what you're up to, oherwise it wouldn't work would it? That's a totally different ball game to a bit of flirtation.

Also, when I mentioned feminism you said this:


I learnt how to help women to squirt and have extended orgasms because of 'the community' and gave quite a few of both.

I'm no expert but I might question your grasp of the fine points of feminism. I might get this quote embroidered round the rim of my fedora though.

Slothrop
16-04-2009, 01:20 PM
glad you enjoyed it mate. of course anyone feels the need to go on a message board & brag about his orgasm-giving prowess & his romps at exclusive sex clubs with hot foreigners is to be taken at face value.

your whole line is one vast, utterly creepy slippery slope, beginning with the premise of objectifying women as objects which are to be pursued & captured, rather than as people. I also find your references to a "community" to be laughable, or perhaps sad as it's merely another example of how meaningless the word "community" has become.

and you're goddamn right grow up. perhaps if more dudes in your "community" could act like adults they wouldn't need to resort to this sort of loathsome nonsense to engage with women.
So are you 'negging' on him now?

DannyL
16-04-2009, 01:22 PM
So are you 'negging' on him now?

Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen.

All Dissensus posters love a bastard.

Mr. Tea
16-04-2009, 01:44 PM
I hope his username is derived from his chat-up like: "So, have you come lately?".



We got into the sex club because my ladyfriend's parents are members.


Oh PLEASE tell me all four of you go together, that would be just perfect. Do you give each other tips? Hold up score cards? "Nice fingering action, son, but your cunnilingus is a little sloppy - here, let me show you..."

Tentative Andy
16-04-2009, 01:50 PM
It will be truly a shame if these idiots give fedoras a bad name to the rest of the world.

vimothy
16-04-2009, 02:25 PM
I think most of the shit I do is on the off chance that women will sleep with me because of it. I'm not sure where that puts me on this debate...

Sick Boy
16-04-2009, 02:38 PM
I completely agree with everything comelately has said so far and the offence has a suspicious air of sexual and romantic failure and resentment to it.

The idea that seducing a girl into sleeping with you is "manipulation" is totally off, and you'd be hard pressed to find girls who agree with that statement. Unless of course you dropped the three magic words and promised to stay with her forever. That's manipulation.

They call it a game because it's competitive and above all it is fun. For both parties. Like comelately said, this is part of the reason that the singles bar and club culture exists.

And what is wrong with bragging about someone you hooked up with? Do I live on another planet or something? Sometimes this forum gets too stuffy for its own good.

DannyL
16-04-2009, 02:51 PM
Have a read of some of those forums and see if you still think the same.

STN
16-04-2009, 03:18 PM
I think most of the shit I do is on the off chance that women will sleep with me because of it. I'm not sure where that puts me on this debate...

including posting on here? i think you're on a hiding to nothing with that, i'm afraid.

BareBones
16-04-2009, 03:27 PM
unless you can convince a "target" that posting here is a "DHV"

(http://forums.becomingapua.com/index.php?topic=777.0)

zhao
16-04-2009, 03:40 PM
i can see valid points on both sides.

womanizing can of course become objectifying and misogynistic, and become another expression of the age old fear of women. this pick-up "culture" clearly crosses the line often. but women objectify men all the time as well (i have no problems when they objectify me)

the "game" exists in a fucked up setting where sex and intimacy are artificially rare commodities. hate the socio-political context, not the game.

if you are single you play the game, whether you admit it, or are good at it, or not. in fact pretending like you are not playing is sometimes an excellent strategy.

what books like this can do is actually cheat and subvert the system which is in place, and bypass all the classist and superficial rules based on appearances that society imposes. i do not believe in "out of my league", whether you are rich or good looking or not -- it's not about those things, and that is one of the messages of these books.

vimothy
16-04-2009, 03:49 PM
including posting on here? i think you're on a hiding to nothing with that, i'm afraid.

Hey man, I never said I was good at it. Anyway, you're thinking of short cons...

STN
16-04-2009, 04:07 PM
what's a short con?

vimothy
16-04-2009, 04:36 PM
The one you can see.

Tentative Andy
16-04-2009, 04:42 PM
i can see valid points on both sides.

womanizing can of course become objectifying and misogynistic, and become another expression of the age old fear of women. this pick-up "culture" clearly crosses the line often. but women objectify men all the time as well (i have no problems when they objectify me)

the "game" exists in a fucked up setting where sex and intimacy are artificially rare commodities. hate the socio-political context, not the game.

if you are single you play the game, whether you admit it, or are good at it, or not. in fact pretending like you are not playing is sometimes an excellent strategy.

what books like this can do is actually cheat and subvert the system which is in place, and bypass all the classist and superficial rules based on appearances that society imposes. i do not believe in "out of my league", whether you are rich or good looking or not -- it's not about those things, and that is one of the messages of these books.

Yeah, actually I broadly agree with that.

swears
16-04-2009, 04:46 PM
i do not believe in "out of my league", whether you are rich or good looking or not -- it's not about those things, and that is one of the messages of these books.

Nah, the leagues are there and a huge deal. It's a bit more complicated than that, but most people will judge you on looks and money.

Tentative Andy
16-04-2009, 04:48 PM
The leagues need you to keep believing in them in order to work though.
Sorry to sound pseudo-deep.

Sick Boy
16-04-2009, 04:51 PM
Nah, the leagues are there and a huge deal. It's a bit more complicated than that, but most people will judge you on looks and money.

If you're ugly, you're fucked. It's true.

zhao
16-04-2009, 05:00 PM
If you're ugly, you're fucked. It's true.

it's not. and never has been, ever.

confidence, intelligence, humor, all of these things trump looks and money.

if you believe you need to be good looking to sleep with beautiful women you have a lot to learn.

the Marquis famously said "intelligence is the single most seductive quality". he was not super good looking. but legend has it he was able to make anyone, girl or boy, take off their pants and bend over just by looking at them. (only to prove a point, not standing behind dood's take on ethics or morality)

it's not ugliness which defeats people, it's the low self esteem and lack of confidence, which comes with and is often a result of their perceived (often by themselves) ugliness which fucks them up.

my ex is a good friend of Vincent Gallo. he used to call her up and ask her for advice on how to talk to women, being insanely, impossibly shy, and having a super low self esteem. she told me it's exactly like talking to a pimply teenager, not a super model.

but of course my argument has its limits. i mean if you are the elephant man (not the dancehall artist) it probably won't matter much how much charsima you got.

Tentative Andy
16-04-2009, 05:11 PM
it's not. and never has been, ever.

confidence, intelligence, humor, all of these things trump looks and money.

if you believe you need to be good looking to sleep with beautiful women you have a lot to learn.

the Marquis was not super good looking. but legend has it he was able to make anyone, girl or boy, take off their pants and bend over just by looking at them. (only to prove a point, not standing behind dood's take on ethics or morality)

Well, I do think that for a woman to sleep with you she would have to find you physically attractive while she was sleeping with you. But I think what needs to be emphasised is the affect having a certain force of personality can have over time in terms of making a prospective partner reconsider what sort of looks they would usually be attracted to. If a person becomes attracted to someone on a 'personal' level - which can cover many things, and doesn't have to mean the deep meeting of minds it is sometimes made out to - they can sort of 'make' themselves like their looks to, without fully realising that they're doing it.
I do agree that money and status are often way overstated in importance.

IdleRich
16-04-2009, 05:15 PM
"my ex is a good friend of Vincent Gallo. he used to call her up and ask her for advice on how to talk to women, being insanely, impossibly shy, and having a super low self esteem. she told me it's exactly like talking to a pimply teenager, so far away from a super model."
Is that him on all the H&M adverts at the moment? Weird.


"Nah, the leagues are there and a huge deal. It's a bit more complicated than that, but most people will judge you on looks and money."
You keep popping up with this Swears, you always sound so bitter.

Sick Boy
16-04-2009, 05:22 PM
if you believe you need to be good looking to sleep with beautiful women you have a lot to learn.
.

If you believe it doesn't level the playing field dramatically then I could say that same. I'm talking from my perspective here, like if a girl was trying to flirt with me. If there was a girl who was really quite charming but didn't really look like she'd be someone I'd pursue without incentive, it is likely I could acquiese. So the charm factor does add a bonus onto the looks right there.

However if the chick was busted or fat, the game would end right there. She could be intellectually and emotionally my divinely ordained soul-mate and if she was busted or fat, no dice.

You'd think this makes me a superficial bastard, but really I'm looking for girls with a bit of both. "Girls with stuff" I think was the phrase.

swears
16-04-2009, 05:27 PM
You keep popping up with this Swears, you always sound so bitter.

I had a couple of really awful, doormat style relationships in my early 20s, combined with general depression and very low self esteem, being stuck in a rubbish job and missing out on various opportunities, etc... I still feel very cynical about dating, it does seem like a market where some people have way more to offer than others.

I'm very happy in a relationship with someone I adore at the moment though, so no more moaning... until I get dumped, haha.

zhao
16-04-2009, 09:00 PM
If you believe it doesn't level the playing field dramatically then I could say that same. I'm talking from my perspective here, like if a girl was trying to flirt with me. If there was a girl who was really quite charming but didn't really look like she'd be someone I'd pursue without incentive, it is likely I could acquiese. So the charm factor does add a bonus onto the looks right there.

However if the chick was busted or fat, the game would end right there. She could be intellectually and emotionally my divinely ordained soul-mate and if she was busted or fat, no dice.

You'd think this makes me a superficial bastard, but really I'm looking for girls with a bit of both. "Girls with stuff" I think was the phrase.

sure it's always better to be good looking. not arguing that.

but show me a guy who is good looking and rich, and show me an average or even a bit below average looking guy who is not rich, but completely comfortable with, and sure of, himself, who is intelligent and funny and not afraid to go after what he wants, the second one will get the girl almost every time.

mixed_biscuits
16-04-2009, 09:18 PM
I went through a short phase of trying out these seduction techniques. The things that I didn't like about this game-playing were (I'm not too sure whether this is a fair portrayal of the practice - it was a long time ago):

- some of the strategies that you are supposed to use work by undermining women's confidence/destabilising them: 'negative hits' for instance. I guess that blokes' naive strategy for snagging someone is 'upbuilding', not chipping away at the prey, whatever (mutual) advantage may ensue

- it becomes tempting to practise your techniques on women you have no interest in, thus leading them on (I think this is encouraged within the 'community' (?))

- I found it hard to move from the analytical thinking involved in the game-playing and begin to act spontaneously again

- I began to feel like I had got one up on the non-game player; which, even though may not actually have been the case, was probably not the healthiest state of affairs

- some techniques involve implicit suggestion; lying, really. One particularly effective one I found was to talk *as if* a long and auspicious shared future was already assumed (even on the first date) - no explicit promise or statement of intent was issued, but the value of the technique was in her feeling subconsciously as if it had been - highly misleading!

Mr. Tea
16-04-2009, 09:51 PM
unless you can convince a "target" that posting here is a "DHV"

(http://forums.becomingapua.com/index.php?topic=777.0)

Being a sleaze, when you walk past a target, it's not like anyone else, it's, you walk past, you know you have to do something about it. You know you are the only one who can really help. That's what drives me. Period.

I know that we have an opportunity and, er, to really help for the first time and effectively get in people's pants, and I'm dedicated to that. I'm gonna, I'm absolutely, uncompromisingly dedicated to that.


.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................


Wow. DHVs, they'll just read about them in the history books. I just go through that tech, literally. It's not how to run from a DHV. It's PTDHV - how to shatter or confront resistance. You apply it, then boom.

*Mission Impossible riff*

don_quixote
16-04-2009, 10:16 PM
it's quite coincidental as I actually invented to a new form of orgasm where women shoot laser beams out of their eyes when they cum.

isnt that a bit dangerous?

padraig (u.s.)
16-04-2009, 10:37 PM
people have made some really interesting points.

I completely agree with everything comelately has said so far and the offence has a suspicious air of sexual and romantic failure and resentment to it.

The idea that seducing a girl into sleeping with you is "manipulation" is totally off, and you'd be hard pressed to find girls who agree with that statement. Unless of course you dropped the three magic words and promised to stay with her forever. That's manipulation.

the notion that anyone who questions the good taste of pick-up "artistry" must be motivated by bitterness or jealousy is 1) repugnant & 2) bollocks. it's akin to that old line about feminists - oh yeah it's all the bitter ugly ones, all they really need is a good shagging, etc etc. it also conveniently sidesteps responding to any of the actual criticisms raised.

you're also misrepresenting what I've said. there's obv a world of difference between flirting/gaming/seduction/etc & cold-blooded emotional manipulation. no one objects to the former of course & truth be told the latter wouldn't bother me nearly so much if dudes like comelately didn't come along acting like the pursuit of casual sex was some manner of deep, mystical quest.


They call it a game because it's competitive and above all it is fun. For both parties. Like comelately said, this is part of the reason that the singles bar and club culture exists.

And what is wrong with bragging about someone you hooked up with? Do I live on another planet or something? Sometimes this forum gets too stuffy for its own good.

I question "it's fun for both parties". who's judging that, you? sometimes it is, of course. again, tho, you're missing (or distorting) the point - no one objects to sex or singles bars. that stuffiness bit is, as mentioned, a strawman. it's actually quite funny tho to see dudes try to defend womanizing by claiming that any critics are just too morally uptight.

DannyL
16-04-2009, 10:38 PM
isnt that a bit dangerous?

Only in the standard missionary position.

Which I would never stoop to anyway. I'm a playa, yo.

padraig (u.s.)
16-04-2009, 11:05 PM
but women objectify men all the time as well (i have no problems when they objectify me)

that's obv true & following from that women (& queer ppl of course) are also capable of all kinds of messed up stuff; w/the obv caveat about who's generally acting from a position of power & so on...


hate the socio-political context, not the game.

the latter is, if not in all or even most of its forms, merely an extension of the former. anyway it's not a question of hating the game - rather of disliking certain players for the way they play.


if you are single you play the game, whether you admit it, or are good at it, or not. in fact pretending like you are not playing is sometimes an excellent strategy.

true. but you have full control over how you play & whether you put winning (as well as how you define "winning") over fair play. there's nothing compelling people to be jerks.


what books like this can do is actually cheat and subvert the system which is in place, and bypass all the classist and superficial rules based on appearances that society imposes. i do not believe in "out of my league", whether you are rich or good looking or not -- it's not about those things, and that is one of the messages of these books.

that is quite an interesting take on it zhao - tho I dunno as I agree that the pick-up artist thing is really as liberating (especially in terms of class - who's benefiting here, really?) as you make it out to be.

anyway, more generally, I'm not losing sleep over it. if dudes want to try to idealize their skirtchasing (or wouldbe skirtchasing) as some kind of noble calling then whatever. just when some dude pops up with a bunch of corny, shite rationalizations for the same old BS I'm going to call him on it.

padraig (u.s.)
16-04-2009, 11:09 PM
isnt that a bit dangerous?

well, you know, it's still in beta testing.

Mr. Tea
17-04-2009, 12:13 AM
Casual sex isn't a patch on formal sex, anyhow.


"I say, Mrs. Pemberton, I hope I wouldn't be too forward in inquiring if you'd care for a spot of cunnilingus?"
"Oh Mr. Pemberton, how jolly thoughtful of you! One would be delighted. And after that I suppose you'd like to mount me in the manner of a Labrador?" *polite titter*
"Ah, you read my mind, Mrs. Pemberton! That should take us up to tea-time, I fancy."
"Right you are, Mr. Pemberton. Or should I say...Donald?" *cheeky wink*
"Oh Mrs. Pemberton, you are incorrigible!" *slaps her on the bum*

comelately
17-04-2009, 12:31 AM
I can't login at work. I had a reply ready but then lots of other people posted. I was busy tonight, I'll try to post on Saturday. To be honest, I find padraig adorable - his style of argument is so manipulative and unintegrous that for him to take a hardline stance on manipulation means that surely either he's a hilariously ironic gimmick poster or else just plain nuts.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6956/cartmansaysitswrong.jpg

It's Wrong! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hBTqgCGnhU)

I actually wrote on a community messageboard that trying to portray going out to pull women as some sort of 'meditation/spirit-quest' was pretty ridiculous. But more later.

swears
17-04-2009, 01:11 AM
I can't login at work. I had a reply ready but then lots of other people posted. I was busy tonight, I'll try to post on Saturday. To be honest, I find padraig adorable - his style of argument is so manipulative and unintegrous that for him to take a hardline stance on manipulation means that surely either he's a hilariously ironic gimmick poster or else just plain nuts.


That's it man, you've nearly got his pants off with these negs, now move in on the target and destroy!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o42BrsHu9UA/SZAFqp_ddqI/AAAAAAAABcA/7bJjRnCemu0/s400/magnolia06.jpg

padraig (u.s.)
17-04-2009, 01:22 AM
yeah clearly I have to be either ironic or crazy.

I'm not taking a hardline stance on anything. I think you perhaps think I feel I'm morally superior somehow? I don't. I'm not a gallant, virtuous defender of women (or anyone else) from some kind of nefarious pick-up artist scheme. I just think you, and more generally this whole pick-up/pulling thing, are full of it if you pretend it's anything other than dudes being skeezy (to varying degrees - & not that skeeziness in & of itself is a bad thing) & trying to figure out better ways to get laid. anyway, whatever. go ahead & say your piece. I'll look forward to reading it on Monday.

Mr. Tea
17-04-2009, 01:25 AM
That's it man, you've nearly got his pants off with these negs, now move in on the target and destroy!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o42BrsHu9UA/SZAFqp_ddqI/AAAAAAAABcA/7bJjRnCemu0/s400/magnolia06.jpg

I wonder if it's coincidence that both swears and I have ref'd Tom Cruise on this page.

zhao
17-04-2009, 01:17 PM
I wonder if it's coincidence that both swears and I have ref'd Tom Cruise on this page.

i bet you can make eachother shoot lasers out of your eyes.

swears
17-04-2009, 01:35 PM
Magnolia is a sucky film, but Tom Cruise's character is hilarious. It should have been a comedy centering around Frank T.J. Mackey.

Sick Boy
17-04-2009, 02:17 PM
you're also misrepresenting what I've said. there's obv a world of difference between flirting/gaming/seduction/etc & cold-blooded emotional manipulation. no one objects to the former of course & truth be told the latter wouldn't bother me nearly so much if dudes like comelately didn't come along acting like the pursuit of casual sex was some manner of deep, mystical quest.



I question "it's fun for both parties". who's judging that, you? sometimes it is, of course. again, tho, you're missing (or distorting) the point - no one objects to sex or singles bars. that stuffiness bit is, as mentioned, a strawman. it's actually quite funny tho to see dudes try to defend womanizing by claiming that any critics are just too morally uptight.

Ok fair enough, I'll concede on that. Cruel manipulation is cruel manipulation, it just really depends on what you consider cruel and what you consider just being good with women. Strategy on its own isn't a bad thing, I don't think. Within any community there will be dickheads, but I don't think that the vast majority of these people believe they are on "deep, mystical quests." I'd imagine the vast majority of them just want to be really good at something that causes a lot of men a great deal of anxiety and insecurity - speaking with and seducing women. Nothing wrong with that, certainly not from the standpoint of the woman who has someone approach them with a bit more creativity and finesse than the opening line "hey babe, lemme buy you a drink."

padraig (u.s.)
17-04-2009, 03:47 PM
Cruel manipulation is cruel manipulation, it just really depends on what you consider cruel and what you consider just being good with women. Strategy on its own isn't a bad thing, I don't think.

right - I'm not making the claim, which would be silly, that I personally have a better handle on what is cruel & manipulative vs. what's having game/being suave, & certainly there is a fair bit of subjectivity & gray area involved. actually I think we should perhaps dispense with "manipulative", it's too ambiguous, in the sense that people are always manipulating each other to their own ends whether they're conscious of it or not.

I just see a vast difference between individual men wanting to become more comfortable around women - the kinds of hopeless cases who go on reality TV shows - and entire communities of guys devoted, in the abstract (that is, removed from the actual playing field itself - forums, books, seminars, etc.), to developing pseudoscientific techniques in order to get women into bed with them, if you see what I mean. It's one thing to want to become more confident - entirely another to use (garbled bits of)psychology & bollocks like "patterning" to essentially con women into sleeping with you. also, at what point is the mark sleeping with the pick-up techniques as opposed to the person using them?


Within any community there will be dickheads, but I don't think that the vast majority of these people believe they are on "deep, mystical quests." I'd imagine the vast majority of them just want to be really good at something that causes a lot of men a great deal of anxiety and insecurity - speaking with and seducing women. Nothing wrong with that, certainly not from the standpoint of the woman who has someone approach them with a bit more creativity and finesse than the opening line "hey babe, lemme buy you a drink."

This is actually what bothers me most - that all these man are so insecure about this stuff that they have to resort to such ludicrous means to feel comfortable talking to women. Not that I'm mocking them for their insecurity, to the contrary it just makes me sad for them, that they're so desperate they have to turn to jerks like Mystery or whoever, who IMO will fill their heads up with exactly the wrong kinds of stuff...

also, I dunno, I'll admit I've never really had this problem. I was quite promiscuous when I was younger, not so much the couple years, either way I've always felt pretty comfortable just being myself & letting the chips fall where they may. frankly I wouldn't want to sleep with a woman I'd "pulled" - not b/c I feel I'd be taking advantage of her just cos...I dunno, it'd be like cheating on a test, I'd rather earn it on my own merit yunno?

baboon2004
17-04-2009, 03:58 PM
also, I dunno, I'll admit I've never really had this problem. I was quite promiscuous when I was younger, not so much the couple years, either way I've always felt pretty comfortable just being myself & letting the chips fall where they may. frankly I wouldn't want to sleep with a woman I'd "pulled" - not b/c I feel I'd be taking advantage of her just cos...I dunno, it'd be like cheating on a test, I'd rather earn it on my own merit yunno?

but i think 'merit' in the way you seem to be using it is a bit of a twistable concept - the reasons why a woman decides to sleep with a man (and any of the other possible combinations) are numerous, and i don't think too many of them are simply based on an assessment of the other person's objective personal merits.

comelately
17-04-2009, 04:09 PM
but i think 'merit' in the way you seem to be using it is a bit of a twistable concept - the reasons why a woman decides to sleep with a man (and any of the other possible combinations) are numerous, and i don't think too many of them are simply based on an assessment of the other person's objective personal merits.

The concepts of 'merit' and 'passing a test' are important issues here. I will post at length tomorrow, but another link I make is with PUAs and the 'borrowed letter/de-gene-rate' concept from Gattaca. The PUAs are 'misrepresenting' themselves as genetic alpha-males and I think that triggers quite the primal response in some people.

One interesting thing about Magnolia is that Tom Cruise lied about his character, saying it was not based on Ross Jeffries.

padraig (u.s.)
17-04-2009, 04:12 PM
but i think 'merit' in the way you seem to be using it is a bit of a twistable concept

no that's fair - I meant I would know if it was on my own merits or not tho, not the person I was hitting on. tho also that bit about merit wasn't a critique, just a personal feeling.

I think what I object to more anyway is these dudes passing themselves off, not as alpha males (which I'm not much of a believer in, at least in such a clearly demarcated fashion - tho that's an interesting point re: Gattaca), but as gatekeepers of something that is mostly snake oil in the first place (like all generic self-help stuff). I guess - even if there are alpha males who gives a shit about being an "alpha male"? I mean, if you're that worried about the size of your dick, so to speak, then clearly you've got other, more pressuing issues.

STN
17-04-2009, 04:26 PM
Hmm, well all this is new to me, and looks a bit lame, but I definitely have ramped up/over-presented parts of my character (literary! morally upright! have been skiing!) to appeal to women. The most laughable of these is where I claimed to be an inch taller than I really am. God knows why I did this. Should I have then bamboozled her by saying I'm an inch shorter than I really am? Have I missed a trick here?

Corpsey
17-04-2009, 04:31 PM
I routinely sellotape my testicles to my spine before I approach women, just to slip under the radar.

martin
17-04-2009, 04:47 PM
When I was younger, a lot of males I knew would go on and on about who they were going to pull next week, how women had told them they'd never been fucked as hard, etc. They always did well but it was fucking boring listening to them going on about grabbing minge and slurring me as a homosexual.

Then I got to 13 and realised there were two paths - 1) go along with them, or 2) get into obscure industrial bands and lust after goth chicks ("freaks!") who wrote poems about playing cricket with the devil, and who dressed like Vampira on a six-day bender. The only 'male qualities' these girls seemed to demand were things like looking OK in a Russian hat, being able to vomit in a telephone box and taking the piss out of your mad father's homophobia. It was cool - until they suddenly decided they wanted to work in airline management after all, or had nervous breakdowns.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is the whole PUA thing sounds like people who chose path 2 suddenly deciding they want to go down path 1. Except without the kebabs and domestic violence. Sorry, but once you've chosen your path, it's extremely difficult to turn back.

Mr. Tea
17-04-2009, 04:58 PM
The most laughable of these is where I claimed to be an inch taller than I really am. God knows why I did this. Should I have then bamboozled her by saying I'm an inch shorter than I really am? Have I missed a trick here?

Rookie error: the word you want is 'longer', not 'taller'.

Ahem.

On the point about emotional manipulation vs. plain ol' putting the moves on, it's probably worth pointing out that it's not as if women can't be sexually/emotionally manipulative, too. The main difference is they don't need books with 'expert advice' on how to do it or forums where they can compare tips. (It just comes naturally to them, the harlots!*)


(*j/k)


(Mr. Tea: for all your tone-lowering needs, since 2006)

comelately
17-04-2009, 05:00 PM
Really interesting from Martin. I'd say I am kinda one of those pathswappers. I tried to go back to Path 1, it's doable but difficult. I'm a third-pather now, but I'm going to a 'Path 2' night tonight. Who has all the sexual power in these 'Path 2' groups - don't they often have a bunch of fugly girls able to punch significantly above their weight and generally rely on weedy boys for validation?

"Progressive PUA Examples"

Alan Roger Currie is a hardline anti-manipulation guy. He basically advocates no bullshit/secution whatsoever as you're playing a game the girl is better than you at. He's interesting.

Sean Messenger runs LVO3 and it seems pretty progressive from what I've seen. AMP (authentic man program) are similar.

Juggler/Charisma Arts can arguably still be manipulative (fake 'qualifying'), but it's emphasis on 'relate and reward' certainly breaks less taboos than MysteryMethod.

mixed_biscuits
17-04-2009, 05:05 PM
If you come across as a Path 1 character to Path 2ers whilst making it clear you know the rules of the Path 2 game too, you can rule.

john eden
17-04-2009, 05:12 PM
don't they often have a bunch of fugly girls able to punch significantly above their weight and generally rely on weedy boys for validation?

It depends what you find attractive in a woman.

BareBones
17-04-2009, 05:14 PM
just to slip under the radar

is this a euphemism?

martin
17-04-2009, 05:15 PM
It depends what you find attractive in a woman.

Totally. At 16, I genuinely thought (and still do) that Kathleen Hanna was 100 times sexier than the playground consensus on Michelle Pfeifer and Cindy Crawford - and I'd still say that even if I'd been born with Roger Moore's looks and drove a ferrari. Though I think Kathleen H would probably wanna punch my lights out for typing that!

martin
17-04-2009, 05:16 PM
But what interests me is this: unlike those who naturally batter down women's defences with whatever it is they've got, and then fuck and chuck (and I do know females who still pine over 'bad boys' who treated them badly but made them feel 'excited' - I'm not going to get into the 'moral' implications here), you're essentially 'learning' some behavioural patterns - is this right? (I haven't really looked into any of this, besides a few writings on NLP). A lot of the people I knew who were just after fucks (and did very well at it) couldn't really explain what they were doing - but you seem to be studying this like a science.

For all you PUAs: if your female 'target' was to discover your PUA forums, find out about your techniques, see you writing stuff like this on the internet, or catch you reading books on the subject, surely their attraction for you would completely evaporate?

padraig (u.s.)
17-04-2009, 05:31 PM
"Progressive PUA Examples".

fair play then you made your point. I still don't think that just because there some progressive types it absolves everyone - not that you're suggesting that. I just mean - I have a hard time believing it's just a case of a few bad apples in the bunch. it just makes sense that a culture devoted to picking up women is going to attract a certain % of womanizers, the same way a police force is bound to attract a certain % of thugs who just want free license to crack heads.

look & then I'm sorry if I misread you - surely tho you can see how absurd it sounds when some dude comes along going off about men struggling to find themselves in a post-feminist world & how he's teaching women to squirt & stuff?


Who has all the sexual power in these 'Path 2' groups - don't they often have a bunch of fugly girls able to punch significantly above their weight and generally rely on weedy boys for validation?

I dunno if yer joking but that's a ridiculous stereotype, akin to me saying that all the people in singles bars are shallow, implanted/botoxed/fake tanned douchebags.

also I'm curious - why does one party have to hold all the sexual power?

padraig (u.s.)
17-04-2009, 05:40 PM
Then I got to 13 and realised there were two paths.

I know what you're getting at of course but that's nonsense - or rather that's exactly how it seems when you're 13 but then you grow & hopefully realize you don't have to imprison yourself in one constrictive path or another.


If you come across as a Path 1 character to Path 2ers whilst making it clear you know the rules of the Path 2 game too, you can rule.

bollocks. even using these "paths" as shorthand for what is actually a much more complex spectrum, most people on 2 that I know would consciously shun the 1 trying to crossover, all the moreso for the act of trying to fake it. furthermore there is something of the flipside - elements of novelty, slumming, adventure, etc. - when I was younger & ultra-crusty ("dogs on hemp strings types" you English might call it - patch pants, studded jacket, dreadhawk, huge plugs, piece of deer antler through my septum & so on) I used to hook up with straight laced college girls roughly as often as punk girls.

mixed_biscuits
17-04-2009, 05:45 PM
most people on 2 that I know would consciously shun the 1 trying to crossover, all the moreso for the act of trying to fake it.

Och no, I was talking about the experienced type 2 faking it as a type 1, to type 2s - someone who might have crossed over a little bit and then come back again to give a field report.

swears
17-04-2009, 05:47 PM
Being a man is so corny it makes me wince sometimes.

vimothy
17-04-2009, 05:55 PM
After reading this thread, I've started negging myself to get in the mood for wanks.

mixed_biscuits
17-04-2009, 05:56 PM
After reading this thread, I've started negging myself to get in the mood for wanks.

lol

padraig (u.s.)
17-04-2009, 06:16 PM
Och no, I was talking about the experienced type 2 faking it as a type 1, to type 2s - someone who might have crossed over a little bit and then come back again to give a field report.

even worse. what I mean is - the assumption here is that 2s would like (even if they don't know it) to be 1s, right? or at least that being a 1 is superior & thus that a 2 with some 1 experience is in "in the kingdom of the blind a one-eyed man is king" territory. what I'm saying is, the whole 1 thing is vastly unappealing to a lot of people who, if anything, think themselves superior for not buying into it. all this # business gets confusing rather quickly, another reason to chuck it I reckon...

comelately
17-04-2009, 06:17 PM
also I'm curious - why does one party have to hold all the sexual power?

Just quickly - no reason whatsoever, vaguely attractive and well presented girls still have masses of sexual power in almost all situations anyway. The fugly thing was a massive exaggeration/generalisation and of course it depends what floats your boat. English 'Path 2' girls don't really do it for me, nor posh girls really. Maybe that will change. I think it's certainly true to say that a lot of the Path 2 girls will elope with Path 1 guys (particularly those with a bit of savvy in the other dimension) in addition to Path 2 guys.

Tentative Andy
17-04-2009, 06:34 PM
Just quickly - no reason whatsoever, vaguely attractive and well presented girls still have masses of sexual power in almost all situations anyway. The fugly thing was a massive exaggeration/generalisation and of course it depends what floats your boat. English 'Path 2' girls don't really do it for me, nor posh girls really. Maybe that will change. I think it's certainly true to say that a lot of the Path 2 girls will elope with Path 1 guys (particularly those with a bit of savvy in the other dimension) in addition to Path 2 guys.

Just to lower the tone further, this is complete madness. :p

Mr. Tea
17-04-2009, 06:43 PM
Just to lower the tone further, this is complete madness. :p

Quite.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/12/12/nigella400_narrowweb__300x430,2.jpg

mixed_biscuits
17-04-2009, 06:51 PM
even worse. what I mean is - the assumption here is that 2s would like (even if they don't know it) to be 1s, right? or at least that being a 1 is superior & thus that a 2 with some 1 experience is in "in the kingdom of the blind a one-eyed man is king" territory.

I guess a fair amount of type 2s are frustrated type 1s or, even if they're not, may still be secretly fascinated by what lies on the other side. Similarly, type 1s may feel empowered by urbane type 1s with type 2 tendencies, who can help them navigate the exotic subcultural nooks and crannies in which the type 2s are seen to dwell.

don_quixote
17-04-2009, 07:21 PM
anymore of this path 1 path 2 shit and im going to have to write a glossary

padraig (u.s.)
17-04-2009, 07:23 PM
I guess a fair amount of type 2s are frustrated type 1s or, even if they're not, may still be secretly fascinated by what lies on the other side. Similarly, type 1s may feel empowered by urbane type 1s with type 2 tendencies, who can help them navigate the exotic subcultural nooks and crannies in which the type 2s are seen to dwell.

I think most people are secretly, or not secretly, fascinated with "what lies on the other side", whatever they perceive that to be, even (& perhaps especially) if they fear or despise it. you know, simultaneous attraction to/revulsion of the Other & so on. & I dunno man this business about types - look sure there's subcultures & cultural signifiers & how you live your life & so on - but really it only matters as much as you buy into it. I dunno if you've ever devoted your whole life to a subculture & then once you stepped out it of it all seemed like the most trivial, worthless shite?

swears
17-04-2009, 08:43 PM
Everybody knows that if you really wanna score with hot girls, you gotta read Lacan.

http://www.amoeba.com/dynamic-images/blog/Charles/zizek-wedding-photo.jpg

swears
17-04-2009, 08:53 PM
I mean, it doesn't matter if you look like Jim Royle dressed up as Don Johnson, you're guaranteed success with beautiful young lingerie models.

woops
17-04-2009, 09:51 PM
There are women involved to a point. It's a work in progress. Women know about "The Game" - If 'nice, sweet' guys learn to 'push the initial buttons', most of them are cool with that. What's wrong with that exactly?


Women know about "The Game" - If 'nice, sweet' guys learn to 'push the initial buttons', most of them are cool with that.


The Game

lol

scottdisco
17-04-2009, 11:19 PM
i bet Nigella and Fred Durst would be a monster fuck

baboon2004
18-04-2009, 02:13 AM
is anyone else never going to have sex again after reading this thread?

zhao
18-04-2009, 08:37 AM
Everybody knows that if you really wanna score with hot girls, you gotta read Lacan.

"above all else, the single most seductive quality is intelligence" - marquis de sade

zhao
18-04-2009, 08:45 AM
"hey babe, lemme buy you a drink."

marlon brando used to just walk by tables at his hotel bar and put down his room key with a note saying like "2:15 AM", in front of women he fancied, without saying a word. i wonder if he even bothered to make eye contact.

zhao
18-04-2009, 09:21 AM
right - I'm not making the claim, which would be silly, that I personally have a better handle on what is cruel & manipulative vs. what's having game/being suave, & certainly there is a fair bit of subjectivity & gray area involved.


to me the gray area is very big. even drawing a line at objectification is difficult as when it comes to sex everyone objectifies.


This is actually what bothers me most - that all these man are so insecure about this stuff that they have to resort to such ludicrous means to feel comfortable talking to women.

but it's a social reality isn't it? created by the same mega convoluted self-image-desire fabrication machine which also created eating disorders; the same system which makes sex/intimacy an artificially rare commodity.


also, I dunno, I'll admit I've never really had this problem.

so increasingly your critique, which is valid, a lot of which i personally agree with, seems entirely subjective and arbitrary, and the moral high ground more and more shaky.

zhao
18-04-2009, 09:25 AM
but i think 'merit' in the way you seem to be using it is a bit of a twistable concept - the reasons why a woman decides to sleep with a man (and any of the other possible combinations) are numerous, and i don't think too many of them are simply based on an assessment of the other person's objective personal merits.

well put.


surely tho you can see how absurd it sounds when some dude comes along going off about men struggling to find themselves in a post-feminist world

:slanted: don't sound too outlandish to me.

comelately
18-04-2009, 01:14 PM
I probably should have said 'post-modern' not 'post-feminist' world because that's probably more accurate.

I was at said 'Path 2' evening last night - small affair in upstairs room. A longtime friend (and male social alpha within that group) beckoned the organiser lady (who he knows well, and I know a bit - she used to date a Path 2 guy but the man she lives with now is pretty Path 1) and said re: her dress - "Why have you come out in your dressing gown?". The girl goes into her 'I've been negged' smile and says 'you're mean' to my friend. I was shocked and told him as much, we kinda laughed it off and moved on. But maybe I was wrong to be shocked. Maybe Path 2 guys enjoy negging and that's why they end up overemphasising it in their pick-ups. I dunno, I just thought it was interesting.

The pick-up community needs to have some 'skeezy dudes' in it pretty much by necessity - they impress certain types of wannabe-PUA and often make convinving 'instructors'. For example, Owen 'Tyler Durden' Cook from The Game (who probably is some sort of megalomaniac, but is clearly very intelligent with regards to social dynamics) has a long-term girlfriend and although he does go out 'in the field', he has people instructors like Tim (whose 'you can be my girlfriend for the next 5 minutes' routine makes me ill) and Ossie (RSD's London instructor, clearly quite skeezy).

The other thing about the 'skeezy dudes' is that they do often seem to really want to help those less 'naturally blessed' in this department. I remember talking to a MM instructor about a PUA called 'Toecutter' who would run a cold-read palm-reading routine which *always* ended up with some line indicating that 'they're fertile' - he boasted that this would and did give infertile girls short-term hope if nothing else. I thought this was completely over the line. The MM guy agreed (though I'm not sure wholeheartedly I grant you), but said that Toecutter probably does more to help newbies out than any other mPUA he knew.

In my own life, I did use some 'comfort-building' questions that I took from a msgboard - it instructed you to be 'really interested' in the answers. Now this post came from a 'skeezy dude' who, according to mutual friends, probably does have some women issues. But his advice helped me without turning me into another skeezy dude. I'm not absolving them of their skeeziness merely rejecting the notion that the community turnhs nerds into cookie-cutter skeezy dudes, like somehow every guy who goes to a personal trainer will become a meathead bodybuilder or everyone who goes to a yoga class will end up renouncing everything and going to India.

I can see why people see the bromance as funny and ironic, but I met some good friends in that community who are often a bit more straightforward and genuine than some of my Path 2 friends - whose flippant bar-culture and status games (I'm talking about this circle in question) seems very strange to me, and I'm not really willing to play if there's no 'prize' for winning whatever that says about me. I didn't go much myself, but I know during the Summer there's one PUA/actor type who runs 'Improv' classes for wannabe-PUAs to just learn to 'riff' with eachother. And they were a lot of fun and it's only natural that people will bond.

I agree that there is a valid critique to be made with regards to manipulation. The grey areas are massive but yes some people in the community step over the lines. I guess what I'm saying is that you don't get to understand the community by looking merely at the so-called 'top guys'. Most people do not want to be that manipulative, so they'll take what they can use and that's *perfect*. If anything, the community is financed by rich people who will take bootcamps and not really put the 'practice' in - young newbs can certainly get a lot of free help in London from the community. Infact not just young, some old guy who lives in a tent in one of the Royal Parks (who had only ever paid for it) invaded the community and he was beyind terrible, stank etc - I think I was one of the first to encounter him but he quickly became legendary. Practically every London-based PUA offered to help him, I know that "AFC_Adam" spent several days with the guy. From what I understand, it was very much two steps forward, one step back but he certainly became a better conversationalist if nothing else.

While I think seeing pick-up as a spiritual quest is just questionable (and the period after the release of '300' was excruciating), you do find out a lot about yourself, and other people, 'in the field'. I believe Plato said that you find out more about a person in a hour of play than in a year of conversation, and so for those who have little recent experience of 'playing' the whole thing can be pretty mind-blowing. A lot of puas end up going on Vipassana Meditation retreats, doing lots of Martial Arts/Yoga. My thing is 5 Rhythms (as in 'Rainbow Rhythms' from Peep Show yes). It's probably because we get quite attached to this sense of 'mind-blowedness' that we found in the field - so I suppose it is akin to a spiritual experience, like a good gig or a good club-night can be. Also, in order for some dweeb loser to truly learn to love and respect women, he's going to have to meet and talk to a few *first*. In an ideal world, the 'pick-up fairy' would leave a new pair of shoes underneath the bed of the poor girls who have to suffer a lame approach from some guy who has no real clue what's he's doing or why he's doing it. Maybe there should be a greater emphasis on 'remedial work' before you actually go and put yourself out there. But I'm not convinced that much damage is being done and I'm pretty convinced that overall the community greatly adds to the sum of human happiness and is a progressive force in terms of deveoping understanding, interconnection and, yes, love.

Hmmm, what was I responding to again? If anyone has anything paticular they want me to respond to, please remind me and I will do so. One final point - although PUA 'terminology' does have its problems and consequences, I think the fact we ended up creating our own short-hand in this thread tells you that this terminology (HBs, AMOGs etc) wasn't just created for the fun of it.

zhao
18-04-2009, 01:49 PM
hang on a sec, is this path 1 and 2 stuff accepted terminology? i thought whatshisname made it up 2 pages ago.

i started chatting up this Czech girl last night at a party but quickly lost interest and just walked away. she hung about me and my friends for the next 10 minutes or so i think hoping to restart the conversation... what is that called?

comelately
18-04-2009, 02:18 PM
hang on a sec, is this path 1 and 2 stuff accepted terminology? i thought whatshisname made it up 2 pages ago.

Yeah he just made it up - it's not accepted. That said, I can definitely see scope for a Dissesnsus 'Enter the Path 1 World' bootcamp, followed by a "Bring your new skillz back to Path 2" bootcamp.


i started chatting up this Czech girl last night at a party but quickly lost interest and just walked away. she hung about me and my friends for the next 10 minutes or so i think hoping to restart the conversation... what is that called?

It just falls into the general concept of 'proximity'.

http://www.pualingo.com/2008/12/proximityproximity-alert-system/

Also worth checking the next entry:

http://www.pualingo.com/2009/02/pseudo-seeker-ps/

A guy called Jeremy aka Soul is one of the top MM instructors - he used to live in London and I met him a few times. Once was at a little pua discussion of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's 'I am That', I think afterwards he went to a dance class. I'm not saying that necessarily makes him an incredibly deep or incredible person, I'm just saying.

subvert47
18-04-2009, 02:41 PM
so this nice thread has descended into a critique of The Game and PUAs :o

maybe some mod should split these posts off?

as for the book itself, I found it a very entertaining read, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that almost everyone in it comes across as a total jerk — with the possible exception of Courtney Love

comelately
18-04-2009, 02:43 PM
I really like the original thread too. And London Fields. :cool:

Tentative Andy
18-04-2009, 02:53 PM
Everybody knows that if you really wanna score with hot girls, you gotta read Lacan.

http://www.amoeba.com/dynamic-images/blog/Charles/zizek-wedding-photo.jpg

Zizek doesn't exactly look happy about his bride does he? :slanted:
The white suit with rose is a big look though.

BareBones
18-04-2009, 04:32 PM
Zizek doesn't exactly look happy about his bride does he?

he's probably just feeling insecure, if you're a beautiful young model you can get any old cultural theorist

subvert47
18-04-2009, 06:16 PM
he's probably just feeling insecure, if you're a beautiful young model you can get any old cultural theorist

true said :D

luka
19-04-2009, 08:51 AM
and then i negged on her face

Agent Nucleus
19-04-2009, 10:28 AM
is anyone else never going to have sex again after reading this thread?

not after visualizing Zizek plowing his sausage in that poor girl, not for a while at least.

Mr. Tea
19-04-2009, 12:01 PM
I don't get the fuss about Mrs. Zizek pictured above - to me she looks sort of like a pre-Raphaelite foetus.

martin
20-04-2009, 12:18 AM
Er...if the PUA community wants to start devising strategies around the concept of 'paths', cool, my ego's stoked to bits, but I was pissing about when I posted that. Just thought I'd warn you, in case you don't get a shag out of it.

BareBones
20-04-2009, 10:28 AM
I don't get the fuss about Mrs. Zizek pictured above - to me she looks sort of like a pre-Raphaelite foetus.

no no, i meant that her personality is beautiful, is what i meant, obviously.

droid
20-04-2009, 12:58 PM
...


The Power Of Pain (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/)

In his book, The Art Of Seduction, Robert Greene outlines a strategy for conquering romantic “targets”:

“The greatest mistake in seduction is being too nice. At first, perhaps, your kindness is charming, but it soon grows monotonous; you are trying too hard to please, and seem insecure. Instead of overwhelming your targets with niceness, try inflicting some pain. Lure them in with focused attention, then change direction, appearing suddenly uninterested. Make them feel guilty and insecure. Even instigate a break-up, subjecting them to an emptiness and pain that will give you room to manoeuvre.” (Greene, The Concise Art Of Seduction, Profile Books, 2003, p.167)

It is no secret that “emptiness and pain” can provoke desire. A key theme of advertising is the manufacture and exploitation of shame. If our hearts can be made to sink at the thought of our sagging bellies, our “Here comes pizza face!” complexion (the words were used in an actual advert), our personal hygiene - “Could you be cleaner?” - we can easily be made to crave the proposed solution.

In sexual, consumer, and political seduction it is crucial that the true intent be camouflaged. Greene explains that we should use "spiritual lures":

“Play up your divine qualities; affect an air of discontent with worldly things; speak of the stars, destiny, the hidden threads that unite you and the object of the seduction. Lost in a spiritual mist, the target will feel light and uninhibited.” (Ibid., p.161)

This also describes the art of political seduction - Clinton, Blair and Obama know all about these "lures".

Greene's strategy of seduction is doubtless successful within its own terms. The method is simple: on meeting an attractive woman, say, for the first time, one should direct a focused beam of flattering conversation, smiles and interest in her direction. She should be made to feel deeply interesting and welcome. One should then suddenly switch attention to some other person and ignore the first woman as if she had ceased to exist. The idea is that this sudden indifference will be experienced as a wounding loss - she will feel out in the cold - and this will create a needling urge to regain the lost attention. At this point, the “target” has begun to desire the seducer.

Alas, no matter how effective the strategy, relationships rooted in manipulation and pain must ultimately suffer the fate of all pleasure-based activities - boredom. If discomfort and its relief (pleasure) are the main focus, then the relationship will quickly be revealed as empty and hollow.

Moreover, the use of pain to manipulate desire and control will surely generate resentment. The Indian mystic Osho commented:

“There is constant fight between lovers and the reason is that you cannot forgive the lover because you know you are dependent on him or her. How can you forgive your slavery? You know your woman makes you happy, but if she decides not to make you happy... then? Then suddenly you are unhappy. Your happiness is in her hands and her happiness is in your hands. Whenever somebody else controls your happiness, you cannot forgive them.” (Osho, The Buddha Said..., Watkins, 2007, p.292)

Greene’s strategy comes as no surprise in a society that systematically treats human beings as means serving “higher” ends. It is a matter of legal fact that corporations the world over are obliged to prioritise shareholder profits above all other issues, including human and animal welfare - the reduction of pain is not allowed to impede the maximisation of profits. Anyone who thinks we live in a free society based on humanist values should try suggesting, in a business environment, that these priorities be reversed, and observe the reaction.

The exploitation of human “targets” for self-gratification is not particularly extreme by our society’s standards...

Mr. Tea
20-04-2009, 01:43 PM
no no, i meant that her personality is beautiful, is what i meant, obviously.

But the concept of a 'beautiful personality' is an invention of Capital's cult-of-the-cosmetic, an internalisation of sublimated Freudian ideals forever seeking the - unobtainable, of course - approval of the Big Other.

Obviously.

zhao
20-04-2009, 01:44 PM
nice article. here is the second part:


By contrast, in his classic work The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm defined a loving relationship as one based on “care, responsibility, respect and knowledge”. We care for someone by responding to their needs based on our understanding of, and respect for, them as unique individuals. Fromm wrote:

“In the most general way, the active character of love can be described by stating that love is primarily +giving+, not receiving.” (Fromm, The Art Of Loving, Thorsons, 1995, pp.17-18)

Although in our corporate culture we are trained to believe that receiving is far preferable to giving - the assumption underlying Greene’s approach - this is badly mistaken. Fromm wrote:

“Giving is the highest expression of potency. In the very act of giving, I experience my strength, my wealth, my power. This experience of heightened vitality and potency fills me with joy. I experience myself as overflowing, spending, alive, hence as joyous. Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.” (Ibid., p.18)

What exactly is given in this sense?

“He gives of himself, of the most precious he has, he gives of his life... he gives him of that which is alive in him: he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humour, of his sadness - of all expressions and manifestations of that which is alive in him. In thus giving of his life, he enriches the other person, he enhances the other‘s sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense of aliveness. He does not give in order to receive; giving is in itself an exquisite joy.” (Ibid., p.19)

Greene writes that “The greatest mistake in seduction is being too nice.” This is correct, if we accept the standard misuse of language. Greene is in fact referring to greed +posing+ as “nice” - giving to get. An infatuated teenager may well shower phone calls and gifts on his beloved. But this will very often be motivated by his concern for the happiness the girl can provide +him+. This is ‘generosity’ as investment, a form of trade, rather than giving motivated by concern for the happiness of the other person.

It is certainly true that “being too nice”, in this sense, is a mistake. Who would not feel aversion for self-centred manipulation masquerading as ‘love’? When we consider Fromm’s key characteristics of authentic love, we can see that this attention will often have nothing to do with generosity, care, responsibility, respect and knowledge. Our ardent teenager may not give a thought to any negative impacts he might be having.

On the other hand, Greene is wrong if he believes that it is a mistake to be too “nice” in the sense of giving out of generosity and kindness. To be genuinely loving is to desire the happiness of another person: to feel happy about their happiness, delighted by their delight, and distressed by their sadness. To be “nice” to someone, in this sense, is to give out of concern for their welfare. This obviously does not mean bombarding them with attention regardless of their feelings. The attention will respect their needs for peace and privacy, and will be non-possessive, rooted in the awareness that no-one enjoys being imprisoned, not even in the name of ‘love.’

john eden
20-04-2009, 02:13 PM
Well, that has cheered me up anyway. :)

droid
20-04-2009, 02:16 PM
May as well post the rest of it so - or try the link in my above post for less confusion :)


...Equalising Self And Other

This is not to suggest that a loving person will be completely selfless. She will of course also be concerned with her own happiness. The point is that this will not all be one way - she will +also+ feel a genuine interest in making the other person happy, will feel happy about that prospect. In my opinion, few words are more beautiful or revolutionary than those spoken by the 8th century Buddhist sage Shantideva when he asked:

"Mine and other's pain - how are they different?
Simply, then, since pain is pain, I will dispel it.
What grounds have you for all your strong distinctions?" (Shantideva, The Way Of The Bodhisattva, Shambhala, 1997, p.124)

The last line resonates across the centuries. To all the killers, torturers, racists, nationalists, religious fanatics, bigots and chauvinists, Shantideva asks: “What grounds have you for all your strong distinctions?" What is the basis for an Israeli feeling that the life of a Palestinian is worth so much less than the life of an Israeli (and vice versa)? What is the basis for the clear media presumption that the suffering of an impoverished, brown-skinned Iraqi is less important than the suffering of a wealthy, white New Yorker? It is nonsense: all happiness is equal. All suffering is equal. No person is more or less important than any other.

And this applies to ourselves in our personal relationships: what grounds do we have for thinking that our happiness is more important than our partner‘s happiness? I believe that if even a glimmer of recognition lights up in our hearts at the reasonableness of this question - though it involves taking the side of others +against+ our own self-interest - this is a wonderful moment in our lives. I believe we can transcend blinkered self-interest in the understanding that our happiness is not in fact more important than the happiness of others. We can come to see that this is simply crude prejudice. We can actually come to take the side of others against our own selfishness. Shantideva asks again:

“I indeed am happy, others sad;
I am high and mighty, others low;
I am helped while others are abandoned;
Why am I not jealous of myself?” (Ibid., p.133)

When I know others suffer as I do, when I know my happiness is no more important than theirs, how can I simply revel in my good fortune? How can I not feel aggrieved on their behalf?

When we accept and act on Shantideva’s premise, we can treat people with the same care, responsibility, respect and knowledge that we rightly afford ourselves. It is not that we treat ourselves with contempt - the important thing is to equalise our concern for self and others:

“Just as I defend myself
From all unpleasant happenings, however small,
Likewise I shall act for others’ sake
To guard and shield them with compassion.” (Ibid., p.125)

An interesting question arises. How do others respond when we place their happiness on a par with our own? What happens when we reject Greene’s strategy of maintaining interest through pain? What happens when we devote ourselves to making the other person happy? Do we become sorry doormats - the victim of every rampant ego?

This, in my view, is the second great wonder associated with the equalising of self with other. Our lives are full of difficulty, confusion and suffering - we are all seeking answers to the problems facing us. To find someone who genuinely cares for us - who feels happy when we are happy, who truly aspires to relieve our suffering - is an extraordinary boon. Most sane people treasure this human quality above all others. As the Ekottarika Agama noted so well:

“When you have found a true friend,
you have found the best thing in life
and life will no longer seem so evil.” (Hsing Yun, Being Good – Buddhist Ethics for Everyday Life, Weatherhill, 1999, p.103)

And this commitment to kindness creates the supreme foundation for mutual love. The 4th century Buddhist poet, Aryasura, wrote:

“For so it is that the brilliance of the virtuous [the authentically loving] attracts the peoples’ love as strongly as does their most beloved friend or relative - just as the smiling autumn moon in the heavens, showering its beams freely in all directions, wins the love of all.” (Aryasura, The Marvelous Companion, Dharma Publishing, 1983, p.333)

Our society gives us endless advice on how to become more loveable: get a clearer complexion, earn more, get smarter, dress better, tidy up the wrinkles, add a couple of inches to the penis. In truth, the best way is to equalise our concern for the happiness of self and other. Nothing is more loveable. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has commented:

“If you make yourself available to others, regarding them as of primary importance and trying to help them by all possible means, everyone will regard you as a friend and hold you dear in their hearts.” (The Dalai Lama, Awakening The Mind, Lightening The Heart, Thorsons, 1997, p.121)

And there are clear implications for the many quarrels that bedevil so many relationships, particularly those dominated by self-interest:

“Increasing like the moon, lovelier than moonglow, virtues [kindness, generosity, compassion] appease the ferocious, the jealous, the angry, and the proud - no matter how deeply their selfishness is rooted in hatred.” (Aryasura, op. cit. p.209)

A friend of mine, a Buddhist monk, told me of how he lived in a house with 50 other monks. Because they were all devotees of Shantideva‘s philosophy, each of the monks was genuinely focused on working for the happiness of the other 49 people in the house. My friend said it was a wonderful place to live and invited me to imagine the opposite scenario: where all 50 people were strongly devoted to making themselves happy with no regard for the other 49!

So many couples consist of two armoured egos waging a kind of trench warfare for their own happiness. But the war itself is a disaster and trenches are a miserable place to live. The tragedy of the metaphorical battle for the TV remote control is that, if the concern were reversed - if both desired the happiness of the other - the tiny loss of a particular TV programme would be offset by the huge benefits of a virtuous circle of kindness and happiness. In Tibetan Buddhism this is called “giving a hundred to gain a thousand”. The Buddha said:

“Victory over a thousand thousand enemies is not as valuable as victory over oneself.” (Hsing Yun, op. cit. p.14)

The rewards from any amount of selfish ‘victories’ are utterly trivial beside the triumph achieved in equalising self and other in our minds. If all couples fought for the happiness of the other, how different their lives would be.

As discussed, authentic kindness has the power to inspire love. To perceive another’s joy at our happiness is a transforming moment - we naturally feel inclined to return that love. Fromm wrote:

“... in giving he cannot help bringing something to life in the other person, and this which is brought to life reflects back to him; in truly giving, he cannot help receiving that which is given back to him. Giving implies to make the other person a giver also and they both share in the joy of what they have brought to life. In the act of giving something is born, and both persons involved are grateful for the life that is born for both of them. Specifically with regard to love this means: love is a power which produces love; impotence is the inability to produce love.” (Fromm, op. cit. pp.19-20)

It is easy to understand how there can be no more stable foundation for friendship than the shared awareness that both individuals are strongly committed to the happiness of the other. What room is there for jealousy, anger and resentment when we know that our friend or partner is deeply committed to making us happy? When we know he or she values our welfare as much as, perhaps even more than, his or her own happiness? Who inspires greater confidence in us than the person who truly believes that they gain more from kindness than from greedy self-indulgence?

As with so much that matters in human life, the issue revolves around where we locate the true source of happiness. Our answer cannot be faked: if we believe that self-interest delivers, that everything else is naïve wishful thinking, then that will certainly be reflected in our behaviour.

If this is what we believe, then we should attend more closely to how we actually feel when we prioritise ourselves over others. How do we feel when we win and others pay the price? How do others feel and react to us? And how do we feel in the moments when, in giving, we make someone else happy? How does this warmth, tenderness and joy compare to the chilly, diminishing return of self-interested pleasure-seeking?

The answers are clear, but only if we pay close attention to our reactions: to what is actually true as opposed to what we +imagine+ is true. This is particularly vital in our society, which never tires of persuading us that grabbing, getting, taking and receiving are everything. After all, what use does a corporate system have for the idea that kindness - which cannot be monopolised or bottled - is the key to happiness?

baboon2004
20-04-2009, 03:09 PM
nice article. here is the second part:

Good to see Fromm's book mentioned! A pleasing circularity in this thread.